SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SWATANTER KUMAR & FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.
RAVI KAPUR - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1838 of 2009
Decided on : 16-08-2012.
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-A - Applicability - Essential elements - Negligence and rashness - Wilfull driving in a crowd will not be covered u/s 304-A. (Paras 16)
(2012) 2 SCC 648; (2008) 1 SCC 791; (2000) 7 SCC 72; (2003) 9 SCC 208 - Relied upon
(c) Res Ipsa Loquitur - Doctrine - Discussed - It is for the accused to prove that accident was not due to his negligence. (Paras 17 and 19)
(2000) 7 SCC 72 - Relied upon
(d) Criminal Trial - Witness - Evidence of witnesses to be read as a whole - Minor discrepancies to be ignored. (Paras 28 and 29)
(2008) 17 SCC 587; (2010) 13 SCC 657; (2012) 5 SCC 738; (1973) 4 SCC 23 - Relied upon
(e) Criminal Trial - Test Identification Parade - Accused identified by different sources - Investigating agency not obliged to hold TI parade. (Para 32)
(2010) 11 SCC 129; 2012 (6) SCALE 381 - Relied upon
(2010) 3 SCC 508; (2012) 4 SCC 107 - Distinguished impliedly
(f) Motor Vehicles act, 1988 - Section 133 - While deposing u/s 313 Cr. P.C. accused remaining silent except plainly denying the charges - Non-service of notice u/s 133 causing no prejudice to the accused - Not fatal to prosecution. (Paras 35 and 36)
(g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Powers of appellate court restated. (Para 38)
(2009) 4 SCC 271; 2012 (4) SCALE 526; (2007) 7 SCC 625; (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2003) 1 SCC 1 - Relied upon
(h) Criminal Trial - Eye witnesses - Evidence of eye witnesses - Cannot be ignored, if reliable and trustworthy giving most appropriate eye account of the occurrence. (Para 39)
Facts of the case:
This is an appeal against setting aside of order of acquittal in motor vehicle accident case.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned order.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.-The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, dated 12th August, 2008.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are : One Sukhdev Singh, PW2, had informed and made a statement, parcha bayan, Ex.P2, to the police at the police station M.I.A. Alwar on 20th April, 1991 stating that at about 9.15 a.m. on that very day, he was going in a jeep to Govindgarh from Alwar to attend the marriage of his brother-in- law, Joga Singh. When they reached Baggad Tiraya, one jeep bearing no. RNA- 638 was also going ahead of his jeep and in the said jeep, his wife, Chet Kaur, daughter Rinki, father-in-law, Lahori Singh, mother-in-law, Gita and paternal uncle father-in-law (Fufi sasur) Niranjan Singh and his wife Kailashwati and his brother-in-law Multan Singh and his son Tinku were travelling. A maruti car was also going ahead of them. Bus No. RNA 339 was coming from Baggad Tiraya side at a very high speed. The driver of the Maruti car immediately turned his car to one side to save himself and the bus crashed into the jeep bearing no. RNA-638. As a result of this fatal accident, Chet Kaur, Rinki, Geeta and the jeep driver died on the spot. The condition of the other occupants of the jeep, particularly Lahori Singh, Niranjan Singh, Kailashwanti and Tinku was very critical and they were admitted to the hospital where they later died. According to this witness, the bus was being driven by Ravi Kapur who took the bus towards large pits in the agricultural fields and after parking the bus there, he ran away from the spot.
3. On the basis of Ex.P2, a case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the ‘IPC’) was registered against the accused Ravi Kapur. The Investigating Officer, PW11, conducted the investigation, prepared the site plan, Ex.P3, and recorded the statement of various witnesses. A chargesheet [report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the ‘Cr.P.C.’)] was filed against the accused under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The court framed charges against the accused and he was put to trial.
4. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses including four eye- witnesses, doctors and the Investigating Officer himself. Upon closing of the case of the prosecution, all the incriminating evidence against the accused was put before him and his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he took the stand of complete denial and stated that the case of the prosecution was false. The trial court, vide its judgment dated 11th May, 2006, held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was entitled to an order of acquittal. Consequently, the Court acquitted the accused Ravi Kapur of all the above-mentioned charges. At this stage itself, we may refer to the relevant extract of the judgment of the trial court, which is the reasoning for acquitting the accused:
“Now only 3 witnesses remain to be considered in the instant case, viz., P.W.2-Sukhdev Singh; P.W.4-Multan Singh and P.W.11- Sohan Lal who is the investigating officer. The Court has to consider testimonies adduced by these witnesses and has to see whether it is proved from the statements of these witnesses that accused was driving the bus rashly and negligently and hit the jeep or not and whether accused Ravi Kapur was driving the said bus no.RNA-339 at the time of the accident or not? In this regard, P.W.2-Sukhdev Singh who is also the person who lodged first information report has stated in his parcha statement Ex.P2 (sic) that one Maruti Van was gone ahead of jeep which had met with the accident and his jeep was behind the said jeep involved in accident. All these three vehicles were on one side of the road and were at a distance of 20 Ft. from each other. One bus came no. RNA-339 towards them near Bagar tiraha and this bus was driven rashly
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra
Mohd. Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of A.P.
Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharasthtra
Atmaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Nageshwar Shri Krishna Ghobe v. State of Maharasthra
Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Myladimmal Surendran v. State of Kerala
Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal
State of Haryana v. Shakuntala
Girja Prasad (Dead) By Lrs. v. State of M.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.