Driver jailed for 18 months for rash driving that left 3 dead
A Delhi court has upheld the jail term of 18 months given to a driver who was rashly driving a vehicle which met with an accident.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has upheld the jail term of 18 months given to a driver who was rashly driving a vehicle which met with an accident here resulting in death of three persons and injuries to 20 others in 1999.
District Judge J R Aryan refused to modify the sentence awarded by a trial court to Tata Sumo driver Rajnish Kumar and said he does not deserve leniency as the accident, which took place in 1999, had claimed three lives and left many others injured.
Kumar`s counsel sought leniency saying that his client had suffered the agony of trial for 13 years and at the time of the accident, he was just 20 years of age.
"To my view three deaths and a number of other persons injured in this accident is a serious circumstance, which should prohibit the court from showing any leniency to the accused on sentence.
"Sentence awarded by the trial court appears to be a balanced one. No interference is warranted in the sentence also. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed," the judge said.
Kumar, a resident of Khera village here, had approached the sessions court challenging the trial court order holding him guilty of rashly driving the vehicle and causing death of three persons by negligence and sentencing him for 18 months in jail along with a fine of Rs 10,000.
According to the prosecution, the accident had occurred on the night of April 28, 1999 at Mandoli road here in North East Delhi when Kumar was driving the MUV, in which 22 persons were travelling while returning from a marriage.
Police said that the accused was driving the vehicle at a high speed and he lost his balance and after hitting rickshaw, the car went toward right side of the road striking against the gate of a building.
Due to the accident, the rickshaw puller and two other persons, who were there in the car died while 20 others including Kumar were injured, it said.
The prosecutor had opposed his plea saying the gravity of offence should prevent the court from showing any leniency to the accused.