Back
1999 Supreme(Raj) 44
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : G.L. Gupta
Jogendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 31 of 1990
Decided On : 01/20/1999
N.K. Bobra, for the Appellant
V.R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents
The prosecution must prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a 'Bilti' without oral evidence or questioning the accused about it in his statement under Section 313, CrPC.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 118-A - RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING - BURDEN OF PROOF - ACCUSED CANNOT BE CONVICTED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF A BILTI WITHOUT ORAL EVIDENCE OR QUESTIONING THE ACCUSED ABOUT IT IN HIS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313, CRPC.
Fact of the Case:
A truck driven by the accused collided with a jeep, resulting in the death of two people and injuries to several others. The prosecution relied solely on a 'Bilti' (a document issued by the transport company) which recorded the accused's name as the driver of the truck at the time of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no oral evidence to support the prosecution's case that the accused was driving the truck at the time of the accident. The accused's statement under Section 313, CrPC, in which he stated that he had driven the truck only up to a certain point and that another driver had taken over, was not put to him during cross-examination.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the truck at the time of the accident. 2. Whether the accused's statement under Section 313, CrPC, and the defense evidence could be used to convict him in the absence of prosecution evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proving the charge against the accused rests heavily on the prosecution, and the accused cannot be convicted on mere surmises. 2. The accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a 'Bilti' without oral evidence or questioning the accused about it in his statement under Section 313, CrPC. 3. The facts appearing in the statement under Section 313, CrPC, and the defense evidence can be used only to support the prosecution evidence, but not to convict the accused in the absence of prosecution evidence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and acquitted him of the offenses charged.
G.L. Gupta, J.-This revision is directed against the appellate Judgment dated 14-2-90 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, IPC and 118-A Motor Vehicles Act, reduced the sentenced of imprisonment and sentenced him as follows :Under Section 279, IPC 6 months S.I. & fine Rs. 100 Under Section 337, IPC 3 months S.I. & fine Rs. 100 Under Section 338, IPC 6 months S.I. & fine Rs. 500 Under Section 304A, IPC 1 year R.I. & fine Rs. 500 Under Section 118-A M.V. Act 1 month S.I. & fine Rs. 100
2. The short facts of the case are that on 29-5-87 Mahendra, PW. 11 lodged a report at P.S. Bhim that he and his family members were travelling in Jeep S.R.T. No. 7254 and when they were some 20 Kms. away from Bhim Truck No. D.E.L. 4172 came from opposite direction with excessive speed and collided with their vehicle resulting into the death of Rafique, driver of the Jeep and Smt. Lata, sister-in-law of first informant and injuries to various persons. The police after investigation submitted a challan against the accused-petitioner.
3. To the accusations read over to the accused he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. The prosecution examined PW.I Ajuba, PW.2 Heeralal, PW.3 Dr. Rajendra Gorvara, PW.4 Laxman Singh, PW.5 Bhim Singh, PW.6 Chandan Singh, PW.7 Mithu Singh, PW.8 H. C. Sharma, PW.9 Daulal, PW. 0 Narayan Das, PW.11 Mahendra Kumar, PW. 12 Nemichand, PW. 13 Nenu Ram, PW.14 Pratap’ Singh and PW.15 Smt. Baya Devi. Accused in his statement Under Section 313, CrPC denied accusations. He came out with the case that he had driven the truck only up to Bhim and the driver of the other vehicle of the same company took away the truck from Bhim. He examined one witness in defence.
4. Thelearned Magistrate held that by the evidence produced in the case, it was proved that the accused was the driver of the truck at the time of accident and the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. He, therefore, convicted him. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge agreeing with the finding of the trial Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner.
5. Mr. Bobra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that there is not an iota of evidence on record on which it could be held that at the time of accident the petitioner was the driver of the truck. He submitted that on the basis of the name of the accused as driver in the ‘Bilti’, it could not be found that at the time of the accident the accused was driving the vehicle. Relying on the case of State of Kamataka v. Satish 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508, Mr. Bohra contended that the burden of proving the charge rested heavily on the prosecution and the accused could not be convicted on the mere surmises.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, tried to support the Judgment s of me Courts below.
7. I have gone through the evidence produced in the case. None of the prosecution witnesses deposes that he had seen the driver of the truck and the accused was driving the truck at the time of accident. The prosecution case rests solely on the ‘Bilti’ Exhibit P-25 which was issued by M/s. Singhal Carrying Corporation in which the name of Joginder Singh is recorded as the driver of the Truck No. DEL-4172. The prosecution has not led any oral evidence with regard to this document. It is further noticed that no question has been asked to the accused in his statement Under Section 313, CrPC regarding the ‘Bilti’ Exhibit P-25. Needless to state, without putting the circumstances to the accused in his statement Under Section 313, CrPC it cannot be used to convict him.
8. Moreover, the accused in his statement Under Section 313, CrPC only states that he had driven the vehicle from Delhi to Bhim. His case is that at Bhim he was taking his food, and the driver of the other vehicle of the same Company, took away the truck. On the basis of the statement of the accused, and the entry in the ‘Bilti’ Ex- P-25 that Jogin
