LexRAVI KAPUR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 229 RAVI KAPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 2009) AUGUST 16, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304A - Prosecution under - Motor accident - Resulting in many C deaths and injuries to many - Eye-witnesses to the incident -Driver-accused identified by the witnesses - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - On appeal, held: Evidence of the witnesses are consistent and supported by unchallenged documentary evidence - Minor variations in the D statements of witnesses are not material - Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, it can be inferred thfa it was a serious accident causing many deaths - Therefore conviction justified. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313 - Nature and E purpose of - Held: Provisions of s. 313 are not mere formality or purposeless - The provision has dual purpose to discharge firstly to put the entire material parts of the incriminating evidence before the accused and secondly to provide opportunity to accused to explain his version of the F case. Criminal Trial - Contradictory statements - Evidentiary value - Held: The contradictions have to be material and substantial so as to adversely affect the prosecution case. G Test Identification Parade - Necessity to hold - Held: Necessity depends on the facts and circumstances of the case - Court identification is as good identification in the eyes of law - It is not always necessary that it must be preceded 229 H 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C R A by Tl Parade. Negligence - Determination of - Held: Negligence is not an absolute but relative term - Determination of existence of negligence per se or whether the course of conduct amounts to negligence, would depend upon the attending and 8 surrounding facts - While determining the question of negligence and contributory negligence, court to adopt the parameter of 'reasonable care'. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 133 - Non-serving of c notice under - Whether would adversely affect the prosecution u/ss. 279,337, 338 and 304A /PC - Held: On facts, no prejudice caused to the accused by non-serving thereof Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Interference with - Propriety of - Held: Normally, the appellate court should be D reluctant to interfere with the judgment of acquittal - But this is not an absolute rule - On facts, High Court rightly interfered with acquittal order passed by trial court as the same suffered from errors of law and in appreciation of evidence. E Doctrines: Doctrine of reasonable care - Applicability of Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur- Applicability of, to accident cases. F Words and Phrases: 'Rash and negligent driving' - Meaning of 'Negligence' - Meaning of G 'Cu/pabale rashness' and 'Culpable negligence' - Meaning of Prosecution was initiated against the appellant- accused u/ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The prosecution case was that PW2 made statement (Ex.P- H RAVI KAPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 231 2) to the police that when he and his family were going A to attend marriage of their relative, the jeep in which his family members were boarded and which was going ahead of his jeep, collided with a bus which was coming at a very high speed, resulting in many deaths. He named the appellant-accused as the driver of the bus. According B to him the accused took the bus towards large pits in the agricultural fields, and after parking the bus ran away. There were four eye-witnesses to the incident. Trial court by its order dated 24.6.1999 convicted the C accused. But after the matter was remanded by Special Judge on the issues of non-holding of Test Identification Parade and non-examination of the doctor, the trial court by its order dated 11.6.2006, acquitted the accused. It held that the prosecution failed to prove its case and that in absence of notice u/s. 133 Motor Vehicles Act, it could D not be proved that the accused was actually driving the bus at the relevant time. High Court convicted the accused. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that E High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the judgment of acquittal; that there was no evidence to identify or link the accused with the commission of the offence; and that there was no evidence to prove that he drove the bus rashly and negligently. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.