Special Judge Savita Rao remanded the matter back to the magisterial court while allowing his appeal to grant him an opportunity to cross-examine some prosecution witnesses.
A Delhi court has set aside the two-year jail term awarded to a truck driver for mowing down a person over a decade ago, saying "prejudice" was caused to him as he did not have proper legal assistance.
Special Judge Savita Rao remanded the matter back to the magisterial court while allowing his appeal to grant him an opportunity to cross-examine some prosecution witnesses.
"Apparently the appellant (driver) does not and did not have appropriate legal assistance available with him, as is reflected from the record. For the non-cross-examination of material witnesses, great prejudice seems to have been caused to the appellant who is not aware of the legal procedure," the judge said.
While setting aside the December 2016 order of a trial court that had awarded driver Amar Singh two years jail term and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000, the judge also made it clear that if due to any unavoidable reason, any witnesses remain unavailable, their examination already recorded shall be read in evidence and no adverse inference shall be drawn for their non-cross-examination.
"Trial court shall appoint an amicus curiae or legal aid counsel for the purpose of conducting cross-examination on behalf of appellant and to conduct further proceedings before it," the sessions court said.
According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of November 1-2, 2011, Singh hit a man with his rashly driven truck near Mehrauli in south Delhi, causing his death.
The driver also rammed into and damaged several shops on the Mehrauli-Badarpur road here, it said.
He was held guilty of offences under sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC by a magisterial court.
In his appeal against the sentence, Singh claimed that the trial court had erred by not considering his counsel's absence on several hearings due to which vital prosecution witnesses were not cross-examined.
The judge noted that there was repeated absence of his counsel before magisterial court and also during hearing of this appeal before sessions court.
"Counsel for appellant has failed to appear and address arguments despite repeated opportunities permitted," it noted while deciding the appeal in Singh's favour.
(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}