- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 15 October 2008
- Bench
- Arijit Pasayat, C. K. Thakker, D. K. Jain
- Case no.
- Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2004
- Result
- Appeal dismissed.
Headnote
v
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.279 and 304A - Conviction un-der, by Trial Court and First Appellate Court - Acquittal by High Court - Propriety of - Held: Proper - There was no spe-cific material to show that accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident - Name of accused not mentioned inpur-ported dying declaration of the deceased - Evidence adduced to link accused to the alleged crime not sufficient.
The prosecution case was that Respondent was driv-ing a bus .in a rash and negligent .manner, which hit a per-son resulting in his death. The deceased purportedly made a dying declaration before the ASI (PW-8).
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held Re-spondent guilty under ss.279 and 304A !°PC a'nd sen-tenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The conviction of Respondent was set aside py the High Court. Hence the present appeaL f. J. Dismissing the appeal, the Court y
HELD: Though there is substance in the plea of the appellant that in the statement made by deceased before PW-8 there was mention about the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, but the evidence adduced to link Respondent to the alleged crime is scanty. There was no specific material to show that the Respondent was. driv-ing the vehicle at the time the accident took place. Name of Respondent was not mentioned in the dying declara-tion. It was duly stated by the victim that he can identify the driver. But he did not refer to the accused. Therefore, ._ the present case is not a fit case where. any interference . by this Court is called for. [Para 6] (959-H;· 560-A, B) i
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. We have.heard learned coun-s~I for the.parties. J,·.
¶2Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single· Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowing the Criminal Revision Petition No.145I1 9 9 5 filed by the respon-dent herein .filed under Section 39 7 read with Section 40 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 7 3 (hereinafter for short the 'Code'). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani by order dated 18th Match, , 19 9 4 found the respondent guilty of .
offence punishable under Sections 27 9 and 30 4 A of the In- . dian Pen al Coc;le,_ 18 6 1 (hereinafter for short the 'IPC') and l. r sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 0 0 0 I - and in default to further undergo RI for a period of three months. The appeal filed befor.e the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani did not bring any relief to the respondent. There-after, as note.d above, the Revision Petition was filed which was allowed by the . impugned --<... . order. ' '
l-3. n is the case of the prosecution that on 13. 2. 1 9 9 0. one Ka.rishi Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was ·hitby_a bus belonging·.to HaryanaRoadways while coming from the side of the Bus Stand. Being hit by the bus, Kan shi Ra m fell down and was removed to the hospital where he died. It was alleged that respondent was driving the offending vehicle. Accordingly, Fl R was lodged and investigation was undertaken. On completion thereof, chargesheet was filed. As accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. Nine witnesses were.exam-ined to further the prosecution version. Out of them, P W-9 Narender Singh was stated to be an eyewitness. P W-9 who was supposed to be an eyewitness did not support the pros-ecution version but placing reliance on the statement of the deceased before ASI Mahender Singh (P W-8), which was treated to be a dying declaration, the Trial Court found· the ac-cused guilty and sentenced him, as aforesaid. The appeal was dismissed. In the revision, the primary stand was that the so-called eyewitness having not supported the prosecution case and th~re being no material to show that the vehicle was being dr'iven in a rash and/or negligent manner, the conviction cannot be maintained. The High ·court found that the so-called eyewit-ness did not support the prosecution version. Additionally, in _f., the dying declaration there was no specific mention about rash
and negligent driving. Therefore, the acquittal was directed . IE
• J 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for.the appel- 'lant submitted that the High Court ought not to have upset the ·conviction, as recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the FirstAppellqte Court. He pointed out that/in the statement made before P W - 8, it is categorically stated that the vebicle which hit him was being driven in ·a rash and negligent manner. He also pointed-out that the official of the Haryana Roadways (P W-5) clearly stated that the bus on the particular date was allot-ted to the accused-respondent.
¶5Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judg-ment of the High Court,
¶6Though there is substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was mention about the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, but the evidence . -adduced . to link the accused to the alleged crime is scanty. There was no specific material to show that the respondent was driving the vehicle at t11e time the accident took place. Name of the re-spondent was not mentioned in the dying declaration. It wa$ duly stated by the victim that he can identify the driver. But he did not refer to the accused. Therefore, we do not consider it to be a fit case where any interference is called for. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. "'+·
Case details
Arising from
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2004
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.1.2003 of y the High Court of Punjab and Haryana ·at Chandigarh in Crimi- ,._ n.al Revision No. 145of1995
Appearances
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem' and T.V. George for the Appellant. Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra for the Respondents. ·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.