In a classic case of how failure to adhere to standard practices during investigation leads to innocents being punished, a driver from Kadur, unconnected to an accident, had to frequent Hubballi court for over seven years to prove that he was not the one who was wanted by the police.
In a case where the alleged offender vanished after an initial appearance before the court, an allegedly forged driver’s licence (DL) book having his address put Jaykumar H.S., a driver from a village in Kadur taluk of Chikkamagaluru district, in trouble.
The case pertains to an accident on Hubballi-Dharwad Bypass Road that took place on June 1, 2010. The Hubballi North traffic police registered an FIR against the accused (truck driver) after the truck he was driving overturned, ultimately resulting in the death of the cleaner.
Based on the chargesheet, the court took cognisance of the offence under sections 279 (driving in a negligent manner endangering human life) and 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC (Indian Penal Code). The accused appeared before the court and was released on bail on August 4, 2012. He appeared before the court on September 6, 2012 pleading not guilty and then went absconding.
In a twist, Mr. Jaykumar started getting summons as the accused in the case in 2017. He appeared before the court and contended that he was not the alleged offender. His plea for stopping proceedings against him was dismissed on March 23, 2019 and a subsequent appeal before the sessions court met with the same fate.
Search for identity
“We subsequently approached the Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka on behalf of the petitioner, which directed the trial court to ascertain the identity of the accused to find out whether he is the alleged offender,” said advocate Vishwanath Bichagatti, who provided free legal aid to Mr. Jayakumar and took up his case in 2017.
The petitioner claimed that his identity proof (DL) was tampered with by the alleged real offender. On the other hand, the investigating officer and the prosecution claimed that the accused himself was the alleged offender and was trying to mislead the court.
After concluding the inquiry and hearing both sides, Judicial Magistrate First Class (Third Court) Anita Sali issued the order on September 25 to stop the proceedings against the accused. In her order, she said that the accused and the alleged offender were different persons based on the inquiry and examination of photographs and fingerprints.
Seeking compensation
Mr. Jaykumar is relieved now but feels that none should be subjected to the mental trauma he underwent over the last seven years. Mr. Bichagatti has approached the High Court again seeking compensation for the suffering Mr. Jaykumar underwent. “We have an adversary system of criminal jurisprudence where the state has to prove the guilt. Regretfully, we had to battle for a decade to establish innocence beyond reasonable doubt,” he told The Hindu.
