HIT AND RUN
Mateen Hafeez | TNN
Mumbai: The police may have copped all the blame for Alistair Pareira getting off lightly in the Carter Road hit-and-run case, but it now transpires that the prosecution failed to summon a forensic expert who would have testified that Pareira was drunk when he mowed down seven people.
What’s more, the expert, who would have explained the implications of the chemical analysis (CA) done on the accused, was sitting in the courtroom when the judge sought an explanation on the forensic report. But, since the prosecutor had not lined him up to testify, the Khar police could not prove that Pareira was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident.
The prosecution’s failure resulted in Pareira’s acquittal for culpable homicide (under Section 304 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code) and earned him a lighter sentence for rash driving even though his actions had resulted in the deaths of seven persons.
Instead of the forensic expert, the prosecutor called a regular doctor from Bhabha Hospital who had no clue about the permissible level of alcohol in a blood sample. Therefore, he was not able to explain to the judge that Pareira was in an inebriated state. TOI is in possession of the chemical analysis reports issued by the director of the state forensic science lab (FSL). One of the reports was on a sample of alcohol from a bottle of Bacardi rum found inside the Toyota Corolla which Pareira was driving.
The report had tested positive for ethyl alcohol (morpholine test). The report, signed by V A Mokal, assistant chemical analyser to the government of Maharashtra, states that the sample contained “42% vv of ethyl alcohol in water’’ and that it was “not a medicinal\antiseptic\toilet preparation, nor a flavouring material’’.
Similarly, a report on the urine samples prepared by B D Dhongade, assistant chemical analyser, FSL, says that it contained “0.056% (56 mg) w\v of ethyl alcohol’’.
Experts hit out at prosecutor in Alistair case
Mumbai: The blood report of Alistair Pareira, who got just a six months term despite mowing down seven persons on Carter Road on November 12, says, “0.112% (112 mg) w\v (double the permissible quantity) of ethyl alcohol’’ .
Rukmani Krishnamurthy, director, FSL, who agreed that the findings were accurate enough to prove that the driver was drunk, said it was inexplicable why the prosecutor had not summoned the man from her lab to testify in court. “When the chemical analysis (CA) report has been prepared by the forensic expert, how can a doctor be called to explain it? Our chemical analyser who prepared the CA report was very much in court but not called in to give his account and explain the blood and urine report.’’
Criminal lawyer Satish Maneshinde explained that it’s elementary procedure to summon a forensic expert to explain the CA report. “It cannot be done by a doctor who does not know the facts of the report. A public prosecutor has to give an application in court to examine a forensic expert and if he does not, then as per CrPC provisions the court can also call experts to explain and examine the report. This step too was not taken,’’ he said.
Incidentally, Judge Ajit Mishra had come down heavily on the police for its “shoddy and casual’’ approach to the case while handing out the verdict. He pointed out the flaws in the probe (see box) and then acquitted Pareira of culpable homicide and for causing grievous hurt while convicting him for rash driving on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Pareira was sentenced to six months in jail.
The investigating officer in the case, S Phool Sundar, sought to defend himself saying, “the police had mentioned the forensic expert among the witnesses to be summoned for a deposition, but the judge did not examine him’’. His claim is disputable considering that a decision to examine a potential witness is usually taken by the prosecutor and the investigating officer, not by the judge.
When asked why a forensic expert was not called to depose in court, Bipin Bihari, additional commissioner of police (west region) who supervised the investigation, also refused to take responsibility and said he was unaware about what had happened. “I was not present in the court, so I don’t know what happened there,’’ Bihari said.
Curiously, the prosecutor, Anuradha Marelikar, examined only 18 of the 40 witnesses listed in the chargesheet. Along with the forensic expert, some others who had a vital role to play were not examined during the trial which concluded in five days. This includes the three cops from Khar who were the first to reach the spot within minutes of the accident and to nab Pareira and his friends.
HOW THE PROSECUTION MESSED UP
PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE: Cops submitted 33 photographs of the accident site, but the man who took them, Pravin Mohite, told the court that the prints attached to the chargesheet did not match with the negatives he had. Also, records showed Mohite had been called to the site 45 minutes before the accident took place.
RTO OFFICER’S TESTIMONY: An RTO officer called in to look at the photographs said he was not carrying his spectacles and therefore could not identify them. He was never summoned again
FORENSIC EVIDENCE: A chemical analysis report was presented to show that there was 0.112% vv of alcohol in Pareira’s blood and urine samples. But the prosecution failed to examine a forensic expert who could have shown that the alcohol level was above the permissible limit
MEDICAL CERTIFICATES: Police failed to submit medical certificates to show Pareira’s driving had led to grievous injuries to eight persons. If it was proved the accident had caused grievous injuries, Pareira may have got two years
The Times of India, April 19, 2007
