DPP to consider whether to file an appeal in Bala case

The Director of Public Prosecutions Christopher Pryde says he will consider the court’s decision to acquit Parveen Bala and make a decision on whether to file an appeal next week.   

Lautoka Magistrate Rangajeeva Wimalasena today ruled that Infrastructure Minister Parveen Bala had no case to answer after the application filed by the defence counsel.

Magistrate Wimalasena said that the court did not believe the witnesses as they gave contradictory evidence.

He then acquitted Bala of the charge.

48-year-old Puna Chand was crossing the road in Teidamu, Lautoka when he was hit by a vehicle in November, 2013.

The man was taken to the hospital but died three hours later.

While taking the stand during the case, the victim’s wife and other state witnesses said that they could not see the driver of the vehicle.

Magistrate Wimalasena said that in view of the offence that Bala was charged with, the elements implicating the accused should be the identity of the accused, the accused drove a vehicle, the vehicle was driven in a manner dangerous to other persons and the impact occasioned death of another person.

The magistrate says only prosecution witness, Sergeant Rajendra Kumar identified Bala.

He said that when he arrived at the scene of the accident, he saw Bala standing near the vehicle which was parked there.

He described the person as Bala.

Magistrate Wimalasena said that there was no dispute that the registration of the vehicle involved in the alleged incident was FL740.

But none of the witnesses said that they have seen the accused driving the vehicle.  

The magistrate says Sergeant Kumar said that he had asked Bala who was the driver and he confirmed that he was the driver.

However Magistrate Wimalasena says it should be noted that this admission manifestly amounts to a confession to a police officer as it was disclosed by Bala upon questioning by a police officer without any right being given to Bala.

The magistrate decided that it cannot be considered as a piece of admissible evidence which implicates Bala in respect of the element that he drove the vehicle.

He also says that there was no evidence as to who was the registered owner of the vehicle.

Magistrate Wimalasena also said that Sergeant Kumar did not give evidence on whether he arrested the accused, whether the accused was charged or whether a statement was recorded from Bala.

He says none of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence about the manner in which the vehicle was driven.

The magistrate says prosecution witness, Arun Wati who was the deceased's wife, merely said that there was a vehicle coming from the Ba side and overtook and hit her husband on the hip.

Magistrate Wimalasea said Wati did not describe which vehicle overtook what.

He said that the court cannot presume or speculate things.

The magistrate said that Sergeant Kumar also confirmed that the vehicle had suffered minimal damage - a small dent on the bonnet.

He said that his evidence was also suggestive of the fact that the vehicle was not driven at high speed.

Magistrate Wimalasena said that the doctor who was a prosecution witness reiterated that the injuries were not caused due to a severe impact.

The doctor said that it could be from a mild fall.

The magistrate ruled that the prosecution has failed to make out a case against Bala sufficiently to require him to make a defence.