A Delhi court has refused to show leniency towards a man guilty of crushing a person under his rashly driven truck, saying he cannot claim sympathy as those who play with fire cannot complain of burnt fingers.

Additional Sessions Judge S K Gupta upheld a magisterial court order awarding him four months rigorous jail term, saying in fatal road accident cases, deterrent punishment is vital so that persons plying vehicles bear in mind that they will face serious consequences.

“One person has lost his life. The appellant (driver) was driving a commercial vehicle and did not take the deceased to hospital. A deterrent punishment is more important in road accident cases so that persons who ply vehicles on road bear in mind that they will have to face serious consequences of conviction and imprisonment in case of the fatal accident.

“The appellant cannot claim sympathy because a person who plays with fire cannot complain of burnt fingers. The leniency is in such as cases will do injustice to family members of the deceased. A stern message has to be given to the society,” the judge said.

The court, while dismissing truck driver Om Prakash’s appeal against the jail term awarded to him, said the entire evidence on the file proved that he was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the victim, whose scooter was hit by the truck from behind in the over-a-decade-old accident.

According to the prosecution, on September 11, 2006, the victim was riding his scooter near Okhla when a rashly driven truck hit him from behind due to which he fell down and became unconscious. An eyewitness of the accident took the victim to the hospital where he was declared as brought dead.

Prakash had challenged an April 27, 2017, order of a magisterial court which had sentenced him to four months rigorous imprisonment for offences under sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A(causing death by negligence) of the IPC besides direction to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the kin of victim Shashi Bhushan.

In his plea, he contended that the prosecution could not prove his identity in the case and there was lack of evidence.

The court, however, rejected his contention and relied on the FIR copy and the charge sheet filed against him.

“To my mind, there is no ground to take a lenient view as the trial court has already passed the sentence on the lower side. I do not find any infirmity or perversity with respect to the conviction and sentence,” the sessions judge said.