Panchkula, Nov. 23 -- A Panchkula court has acquitted a city resident in a 2019 fatal road accident case, citing the Panchkula police's investigative and procedural failures, including a lack of clarity on the territorial jurisdiction of the mishap. Ravi Ojha, a resident of Sector 25, was booked in case registered under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code at the Sector 20 police station on February 27, 2019. This came after the body of Subhash, a labourer hailing from Uttar Pradesh and residing in Zirakpur, was found at the Dera Bassi civil hospital. The victim's friend, Guddu, had told police that on the fateful day, the duo was heading towards Sector 20, Panchkula, when a motorcyclist hit Subhash, leaving him fatally injured. He had further told police that Subhash was rushed to the Dera Bassi civil hospital, where he was declared dead. The investigating officer, assistant sub-inspector (ASI) Arjun Singh had gone to Dera Bassi to record Guddu's statement. After the registration of the FIR, Ojha was arrested on March 6, 2019, and his vehicle seized. During trial, the court held that the FIR was improperly registered in Haryana (Sector 20 police station, Panchkula). As per the complainant's own evidence, the accident occurred in an area under Punjab Police's jurisdiction. This was supported by the fact that the injured was taken to civil hospital in Dera Bassi and the eyewitness was informed by the person who took the injured to hospital that the accident spot fell within the jurisdiction of Punjab. The court ruled: "The FIR should have been registered within the jurisdiction of Punjab and not within the jurisdiction of Haryana... the case of prosecution against the accused fails due to absence of territorialjurisdiction." While the accident and the involvement of the vehicle were proven, the court found the identity of the driver was not established. Although the eyewitness Guddu identified the accused in his examination-in-chief, cross-examination revealed he failed to identify the accused as the driver. Crucially, the witness admitted that police had disclosed to him that Ojha was the person responsible after the arrest. The court stated this confession "washed away the identification memo", meaning the identity was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also noticed that the investigating officer (IO), ASI Arjun Singh, failed to depose about the territorial jurisdiction, the date of arrest, or whether a test identification parade was conducted. The IO even deposed that he "cannot tell whether the accused facing trial was responsible for the accident or not". He, being the IO of the case, has deposed against the case of prosecution, court said. Constable Kuldip also failed to give the date, month, and year of the accident and contradicted the police's records by confirming that no identification parade was conducted. The court said that his deposition is against the documents prepared at the instance of the complainant i.e. identification memo. In light of these procedural and evidential failures, the court granted Ojha the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him....