A local court has awarded five years’ rigorous imprisonment to a woman who drove over a three-year-old boy while speaking on a mobile phone in Peer Muchalla, Dhakoli, in November 2023.
The incident had taken place around 2 pm on November 2, 2023, when the toddler was near the main gate of his house. He took the boy to the civil hospital in Sector 6, Panchkula, where doctors declared him dead. The court relied on the father’s testimony, closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera footage and other evidence linking Sirohi to the car, bearing registration number CH-01-AW-9919.
His father told the court that a grey Maruti Swift Dzire hit the child and drove away.
Sahil Sharma, the man who had lent her his family car, also testified in court that he had handed over the vehicle to Sirohi that day after borrowing her scooter to collect blood samples. The vehicle belonged to his father, Naresh Kumar. During the sentencing hearing, her counsel sought leniency, saying she was a first-time offender, was married and had two school-going children and a husband to look after. The prosecution opposed leniency and sought the maximum punishment.
Additional sessions judge Navdeep Kaur Gill convicted Renu Sirohi under Section 304 Part-II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, holding that she knew that her act – of talking over phone while driving – was likely to cause death, even though she had no intention to kill the child. The court also imposed a ₹ 20,000 fine on her. In case she defaults on the payment, she will have to undergo two additional months’ behind bars. The court further observed that her decision to flee after hitting the boy, was also relevant in determining her knowledge of the likely consequences. The judge observed that sentencing must balance deterrence and correction and that punishment should be proportionate to the crime. It also directed that the period Sirohi already spent in custody during the investigation or trial be set off against her sentence.
The court said it considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the circumstances, and the convict’s age, character and antecedents before concluding that five years’ imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.
