SATNAM SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 422 · Decided: 17-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SA TNAM SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
DECEMBER 17, 1999 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860-Sections 304A and 30?-Conviction under-
Injirmity in the evidence of eye-witnesses-Delay in recording the statements 
of the witnesses-Witnesses stating to have seen the appellant intentionally 
C crushing the deceased by his truck-Held, unreliable-Witness stating to 
have seen ·the appellant running away from the scene of occurrence-Held, 
does not establish the offence of murder-It establishes the offence of rash 
and negligent driving. 
Appellant, a truck driver, was alleged to have crushed 'M' intentionally 
D under his truck. A case under Section 304A IPC was registered on the basis 
of the FIR lodged by PW4, and later on the case was converted to one under 
Section 302 IPC. PWs 5, 6 and 8 were three eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 
PW 5 in his testimony stated that he had seen the appellant running away 
from the scene of occurrence after the accident. PWs 6 and 8, stated that 
E the appellant was waiting for the deceased to come by the road and as soon 
as he saw the deceased coming on scooter, he crushed him under his speeding 
truck. The statements of the three eye-witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 
were recorded after three days of the ocurrence. The witnesses had not 
disclosed the incident to any one immediately after the occurrence. PW 6 
in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. had not mentioned to have seen 
F the incident. PW 8 in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. had not 
mentioned the name of the appellant as the person driving the truck. Trial 
Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs 6 & 8 and relying on the evidence 
of PW 5 and motive, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. High 
Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, relying on the evidence 
G of PW 5 as well as PWs 6 and 8. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the evidence of the 
three eye-witnesses could not have been relied upon in view of material 
omission in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C; and that 
no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW 5 as his statement under 
H Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded after three days of the occurrence and 
422 
SATNAM SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [PATTANAIK, J.) 423 
he had not informed about the occurrence to anyone; and that even if the A 
evidence of PW 5 is relied upon, the offence can be said to be one under 
section 304A and not under section 302 IPC. Respondent-State and the 
informant contended that the High Court had rightly relied upon the evidence 
of PWs 6 and 8, and that the motive and the circumstances under which the 
deceased was run over, clearly establish that appellant intentionally killed B 
the deceased and it was not a case of rash and negligent driving. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD : 1. The prosecution has failed to establish the offence under 
Section 302 IPC. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is 
set aside and he is convicted under Section 304A IPC. (427-F) 
C 
2. Even if the statement of PW 5 is relied upon, the said evidence would 
·not establish the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and at the most 
the offence committed would be one under Section 304A IPC. (426-C) 
3. No reliance can be placed on the evidence of PWs 6 and 8. If the 
evidence of PWs 6 and 8 is ignored from the consideration, then on the D 
evidence of PW 5, it is difficult to hold that a case of murder by intentionally 
driving the vehicle at a high speed and then crushing over the deceased by 
the truck can be said to have been made out beyond reasonable doubt. 
(427-E-F) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 64 E 
of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.1997 of the High Court of 
Rajasthan, Jodhpur in D.B.crl. Appeal No. 132/95. 
Sushil Kumar Jain, A.A.G., Rajasthan, Sushi! Kumar, U.R. Lalit, V.J. F 
Francis, A. Radhakrishnan, R.P. Wadhwani, Ms. Mirdula Agarwal, Mahabir 
Singh,_ A. Mishra and Ms. Anjali Doshi, for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J. The appellant, a truck driver was convicted under 
Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned G 
Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1994. 
On appeal, the said conviction and sentence has been upheld by the High 
Court of Rajasthan. The present appeal is directed against the said conviction 
and sentence. 
T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.