HYDERABAD: A 2017 hit and run case of drunken driving which resulted in the death of a diploma student at Hayathnagar of Rachakonda commissionerate, ended in acquittal, as the court set free the person driving the car and three of his friends who were in the vehicle. They were all arrested on charges of culpable homicide and driving in a drunken condition.
During the investigation, police proved that the accused purchased liquor from a wine shop, but failed to prove that the accused were in a drunken condition at the time of the incident. The wine shop owner testified in court that the accused purchased a liquor bottle from his shop, but he did not say that they had consumed it in his shop or nearby.
“Therefore his evidence is not helpful to say that the accused were in a drunken condition at the relevant time (the time of the incident), “ the court stated in the verdict delivered a few days ago. The court also pointed out that, except for the basis of confession of the accused, no other evidence was placed with regard to drunken driving.
Further, two other students who were eyewitnesses to the incident identified the accused in the car, without an identification parade. “Therefore, the developed theory of drunken driving by the police is nothing but conjecture and surmise. There is no evidence to show that the accused drove the car in a drunken state. At most, the act of the accused( driver) , if any, falls in the ambit of Section 304A of the IPC, but there is no substantive piece of evidence even for tagging him for the offence,” observed the court. The main accused had purchased a new car and had gone out with his friends for a drive.
At Hayathnagar, the vehicle ran into the victims waiting at the bus stop, leaving one dead and another injured. During their investigation, police found that the car’s occupants were all in a drunken condition and arrested all four of them including the driver.
No proof that the driver was drunk
“The developed theory of drunken driving is nothing but conjecture and surmise. There is no evidence to show that the accused drove the car in a drunken state. At most, the act of the accused, if any, falls in the ambit of Section 304A, but there is no substantive piece of evidence to tag him for the offence,” the court observed