State of Haryana Vs.
Sher Singh [2008] INSC 1736 (15 October 2008)
Judgment
REPORTABLE IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 199
OF 2004 STATE OF HARYANA .... Appellant Versus SHER SINGH .... Respondent
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court allowing the Criminal Revision Petition No. 145/1995 filed
by the respondent herein filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for short the 'Code'). The
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani by order dated 18th March, 1994
found the respondent guilty of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A
of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter for short the 'IPC') and sentenced
to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default to further undergo RI for a period of three months. The appeal filed
before the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani did not bring any relief to the respondent.
Thereafter, as noted above, the Revision Petition was filed which was 2
allowed by the impugned order.
3.
It
is the case of the prosecution that on 13.2.1990, one Kanshi Ram (hereinafter
referred to as 'the deceased') was hit by a bus belonging to Haryana Roadways
while coming from the side of the Bus Stand. Being hit by the bus, Kanshi Ram
fell down and was removed to the hospital where he died. It was alleged that
respondent was driving the offending vehicle. Accordingly, FIR was lodged and
investigation was undertaken. On completion thereof, chargesheet was filed. As
accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. Nine witnesses were examined to
further the prosecution version. Out of them, PW-9 Narender Singh was stated to
be an eyewitness.
PW-9 who was supposed
to be an eyewitness did not support the prosecution version but placing
reliance on the statement of the deceased before ASI Mahender Singh (PW-8),
which was treated to be a dying declaration, the Trial Court found the accused
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 there being no material to show that the
vehicle was being driven in a rash and/or negligent manner, the conviction
cannot be maintained. The High Court found that the so-called eyewitness did
not support the prosecution version. Additionally, in the dying declaration there
was no specific mention about rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the
acquittal was directed.
4.
In
support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
High Court ought not to have upset the conviction, as recorded by the Trial
Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court. He pointed out that in the
statement made before PW-8, it is categorically stated that the vehicle which
hit him was being driven in a 3 rash and negligent manner. He also pointed out
that the official of the Haryana Roadways (PW-5) clearly stated that the bus on
the particular date was allotted to the accused-respondent.
5.
Learned
counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the High Court.
6.
Though
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 the
time the accident took place. Name of the respondent was not mentioned in the
dying declaration. It was 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.
.......................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
.......................J.
(C.K. THAKKER)
.......................J
Back
Pages: 1 2
