SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Raj) 884

(Supreme Court)
Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan (Kumar, J.)
SWATANTER KUMAR, J.
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.
Ravi Kapur
Versus
State of Rajasthan
Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 2009, decided on 16.08.2012

Headnote:Penal Code, Sec. 279, 337, 338 and 304-I read with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 133 — Acquittal by trial Court — Matter of causing death by rash and negligent driving — High Court convicted u/Sec. 304 Part I — Person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result — Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to accident cases and not only to civil jurisprudence — The factum of accident having been established, the Court with the aid of proper evidence may take assistance of the attendant circumstances and apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor — In cases where negligence is the primary cause in such cases, circumstantial evidence may be adduced to prove negligence — Held — The trial Court has ignored the statement of eye-witnesses, when they were reliable, trustworthy and gave the most appropriate eye account of the accident — Judgment of trial court suffered from errors of law and in appreciation of evidence — Interference by High Court with the judgment of acquittal by trial Court does not suffer from any error. (Paras 18, 38, 39)

       Appeal dismissed.

        n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 279] 337] 338 ,oa 304-I lifBr eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 133 & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nks"k eqfDr & mrkoysiu ,oa ykijokgh ls ;ku pyk dj e`R;q dkfjr djus dk ekeyk & mPp U;k;ky; us /kkjk 304 Hkkx I ds rgr nks"k fl) fd;k & O;fDr tks lM+d ij ;ku pykrk gS og ml d`R; ds lkFk lkFk ifj.kke ds fy, Hkh ftEesnkj Bgjk;s tkus dk nk;h gS & nq?kZVuk ds ekeyksa esa Lo;a izek.k dk fl)kUr ykxw gksrk gS u dsoy nhokuh fof/k 'kkL= ij & nq?kZVuk dk rF; lkfcr dj nsus ij] leqfpr lk{; dh lgk;rk ls U;k;ky; rRlEc) ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh lgk;rk ys ldrk gS rFkk Lo;a izek.k dk fl)kUr ykxw dj ldrk gS & ,sls ekeyksa esa tgka ykijokgh eq[; dkj.k gksrk gS rks ykijokgh lkfcr djus ds fy, ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; is'k fd;s tk ldrs gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us p'en~nhn lk{khx.k ds dFku dh mis{kk dh] tcfd os fo'oluh;] Hkjksnsean Fks ,oa nq?kZVuk dk lcls mi;qDr vka[kksa ns[kk fooj.k fn;k & fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fof/k dh =qfV ,oa lk{; ds vewY;kadu ls xzflr gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nks"k eqfDr ds fu.kZ; esa mPPk U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fdlh Hkh izdkj dh =qfV ls xzflr ugha gSA ¼in la[;k 18] 38] 39½

       vihy [kkfjt dhA


       

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.P/2, to the police at the police station M.I.A. Alwar on 20.4.1991 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 abovementioned 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 and negligently and directly hit the jeep











































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top