Noida Court Acquits Jaguar Driver in 2022 Scooter Death Case, Cites Lack of Proof
In a significant ruling, an additional district and sessions court in Noida acquitted a Delhi resident, Samuel Andrew Pyster, on Friday, who was accused of crushing a scooter rider to death with his Jaguar car in 2022. The court held that neither rash driving nor negligence could be proved beyond reasonable doubt in this tragic incident.
Court's Verdict and Legal Proceedings
Judge Vijay Kumar Himanshu stated that the prosecution failed to establish its case conclusively, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. The court directed Pyster to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties of the same amount, in compliance with section 437A of the CrPC. The case was initially registered under sections 279 (rash driving), 304A (causing death due to negligence), and 427 (causing loss by mischief), with charges later improved to 302 (culpable homicide amounting to murder), but the court did not accept this escalation.
Details of the Accident
On the morning of December 4, 2022, Deepika Tripathi, an employee of a real estate firm, was on her way to work at E-Square in the Supertech Building, Sector 96, Noida. Around 9:30 AM, as she approached her office, a Jaguar car with an Odisha registration, driven by Pyster, collided with her from the opposite direction. Tripathi later succumbed to her injuries at a hospital. The case was filed based on a complaint by her brother, Rajnarayan Tripathi, with the Sector 39 police.
Prosecution and Defence Arguments
The prosecution, represented by SPP Chavanpal Singh, argued that repair work had closed one side of the road, and Pyster drove at high speed despite spotting the victim, leading to the fatal collision. They presented seven witnesses, including the plaintiff and three eyewitnesses from the Supertech building's security department.
In contrast, defence counsel Aditya Sharma contended that Tripathi came from the wrong side of the road and abruptly turned right to enter her office, causing the accident. He emphasized that Pyster did not flee the scene; instead, he helped take the injured to the hospital and called the police, distinguishing it from a hit-and-run case.
Eyewitness Testimonies and Court Analysis
Security officer Amlesh Rai, appearing as PW3, testified that people often used the wrong side for convenience, making high-speed driving improbable on the busy road. He noted the Jaguar was in the correct lane, while the scooter came from the wrong direction. Another guard, Pankaj Tiwary, described the victim signaling for the car to stop before being hit, with the driver stopping 100 meters away after a tyre burst.
Pyster, as a defence witness, claimed his car's airbags did not deploy, indicating he was driving at a normal speed. After evaluating all evidence, the court concluded the incident was merely an accident, with no intent or knowledge to cause death. It ruled that even if Pyster was speeding, his actions did not constitute rashness or negligence, as the victim's sudden turn was unanticipated.
Broader Implications
This acquittal highlights the challenges in proving vehicular negligence cases in Indian courts, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of intent or recklessness. It also underscores the importance of road safety awareness and adherence to traffic rules to prevent such tragedies.
