STATE OF HARYANA v. SHER SINGH

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
C.K. Thakker
D.K. Jain
Judgment Date: 2008-10-15
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Haryana

Respondents

Sher Singh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rajeev Gaur
• Naseem

Counsels for Respondents

• Rishi Malhotra
• Prem Malhotra

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal appeal arising from a road-accident fatality involving a Haryana Roadways bus. The prosecution contends that Sher Singh, the bus driver, drove in a rash and negligent manner, causing the death of Karish Ram. A dying declaration was allegedly made to PW-8 (the ASI), which the prosecution relies upon to connect the driver to the crime. The Trial Court convicted the respondent under sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment, with a subsequent appeal by the State and a revision petition. The Sessions Court’s conviction was upheld by the trial and first appellate courts, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court later acquitted the accused, directing his acquittal in the revision. The State appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order. The appellant argues that the dying declaration mentions rash and negligent driving and that the bus was allocated to the accused, providing a link to the offence. The respondent argues that the dying declaration did not name the driver, the key eyewitness did not corroborate the prosecution, and there is insufficient material tying the accused to the act of driving at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court ultimately upholds the High Court’s acquittal, emphasizing scanty evidence and the absence of the accused’s name in the dying declaration. The appeal is dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 279 IPCSection 304A IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the trial court and the first appellate court correctly convicted the accused under sections 279 and 304A IPC, and that the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction. It relies on the dying declaration mentioning rash and negligent driving, corroboration from PW-5 that the bus was allotted to the accused, and argues these links establish the driver’s identity and liability.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the dying declaration did not name the accused, the eyewitness (PW-9) did not support the prosecution, and there is scanty evidence linking the accused to the act of driving at the relevant time; hence the High Court’s acquittal should be sustained.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 957 A ~ B _v_ D E STATE OF HARYANA _v._ SHER SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2004) OCTOBER 15, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] _Penal Code, 1860_ - _ss.279 and 304A_ - _Conviction un-_ - _der, by Trial Court and First Appellate Court Acquittal by_ c _High Court_ - _Propriety of_ - _Held: Proper_ - _There was no specific material to show that accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident_ - _Name of accused not mentioned inpurported dying declaration of the deceased_ - _Evidence adduced to link accused to the alleged crime not sufficient._ ;. ... The prosecution case was that Respondent was driving a bus .in a rash and negligent .manner, which hit a person 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 Respondent guilty under ss.279 and 304A !°PC a'nd sentenced 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 G Respondent 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 957 H 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. \. A B c of 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, the present case is not a fit case where. any interference . by this Court is called for. [Para 6] (959-H;· 560-A, B) CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2004 From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.1.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana ·at Chandigarh in Crimin.al Revision No. 145of1995 "' _;._ . i_ **==> picture [12 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** y **----- End of picture text -----** " ,._ 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 D DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. We have.heard learned couns~I 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 E Criminal Revision Petition No.145I1 9 9 5 filed by the respondent 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 F 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 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 G[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. --<... . ' ' E F **==> picture [13 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** J,·. **----- End of picture text -----** ~ _'(_ _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 H[·hitby_a bus belonging·.to HaryanaRoadways while coming from ] . STATE OF HARYANA _v._ SHER SINGH 959 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] __f.,_ the side of the Bus Stand. Being hit by the bus, Kan shi Ra m _:_ A 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.examB 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 prosecution version but placing reliance on the statement of the deceased before ASI Mahender Singh (P W- 8), which was C 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 socalled 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 D 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 . • J IE 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 . F 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 allotted to the accused- respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judg- . G ment 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 . . H 960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. - A 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 respondent was not mentioned in the dying declaration. It wa$ duly stated by the victim that he can identify the driver. But he - 8 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. Appeal dismissed. - 8.8.8. _"'+·_ _J-_