Mumbai: refusing to give a punishment to a best 52-year-old driver who hit a woman even though there was a signal of walking pedestrians seven years ago, the Judge Kurla court while watching her one month prison that had to be considered by the trend of galloping in an accident on the road on the road India and the awesome consequences of visiting the victims and their families.
The court refused to provide a petition for Sakharam Bangar to release with a good bond of behavior under the period of rebel the violator acting instead of serving a sentence.
“The Criminal Court cannot treat the nature of violations as attracting good provisions from Section 4 of the trial period of the violator law.
In a set of situations like that it will not be wise to punish the defendant well or until the rise of the court,” said Metropolitan Magistrate Mrudula S Kochar.
“It was founded that the defendant drove a bus at high speed, carelessly, without taking the right precautions and ran to the informant.” Six witnesses, including women who were injured by Kulsum Khaled, eyewitnesses and conductors were overthrown.
Khaled submitted it on November 5, 2014, at 10:30 a.m., he used the pedestrian crossing on Jalan Link Ghatkopar-Manchurd when the best bus number 357 ran and he suffered an injury on the left side of his body.
The conductor depends on they proceed to Shivaji Nagar Depot from Kurane Chowk when the bus stops the signal in Shivaji Nagar Junction.
He handed himself that the bus took the right turn when the signal turned green when people started banging the bus and shouting that a woman was underneath.
He said Bangar immediately stopped the bus.
But a witness said he was waiting for a signal to his bicycle when he saw the bus coming at high speed, take turn back and press the woman who had crossed halfway.
He said the bus dragged him a bit far and only when people shouted that the driver stopped the bus, went down and ran towards Chowky’s police.
Technical reports also show that there are no mechanical errors by bus.
“It was clear that the defendant drove a vehicle at the alleged time of the incident.
One can conclude that prosecution is successful in determining the identity of the defendant and vehicles involved in violations,” said the court.