STATE OF HARYANA versus SHER SINGH

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 15-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 957 
~ 
STATE OF HARYANA 
A 
v. 
SHER SINGH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2004) 
OCTOBER 15, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, 
JJ.] 
v 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.279 and 304A - Conviction un-
der, by Trial Court and First Appellate Court - Acquittal by c 
High Court - Propriety of - Held: Proper - There was no spe-
cific material to show that accused was driving the vehicle at 
the time of accident - Name of accused not mentioned inpur-
ported dying declaration of the deceased - Evidence adduced 
to link accused to the alleged crime not sufficient. 
D 
;. 
The prosecution case was that Respondent was driv-
ing a bus .in a rash and negligent .manner, which hit a per-
... 
son resulting in his death. The deceased purportedly 
made a dying declaration before the ASI (PW-8). 
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held Re-
E 
spondent guilty under ss.279 and 304A !°PC a'nd sen-
tenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one 
year. The conviction of Respondent was set aside py the 
High Court. Hence the present appeaL 
f. 
J. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
y 
HELD: Though there is substance in the plea of the 
appellant that in the statement made by deceased before 
PW-8 there was mention about the rash and negligent 
driving of the vehicle, but the evidence adduced to link G 
Respondent to the alleged crime is scanty. There was no 
-\ 
specific material to show that the Respondent was. driv-
ing the vehicle at the time the accident took place. Name 
957 
H 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
of Respondent was not mentioned in the dying declara-
"' 
tion. It was duly stated by the victim that he can identify 
the driver. But he did not refer to the accused. Therefore, 
;. 
the present case is not a fit case where. any interference 
._ 
. by this Court is called for. [Para 6] (959-H;· 560-A, B) 
i 
B 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 199 of 2004 
\. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.1.2003 of 
y 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana ·at Chandigarh in Crimi-
" 
n.al Revision No. 145of1995 
,._ 
c 
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem' and T.V. George for the Appellant. 
Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra for the Respondents. 
~ 
·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. We have.heard learned coun-
s~I for the.parties. 
J,·. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
~ 
Single· Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowing the 
E 
Criminal Revision Petition No.145I1 9 9 5 filed by the respon-
dent herein .filed under Section 39 7 read with Section 40 1 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 7 3 (hereinafter for short 
the 'Code'). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani by 
( 
order dated 18th Match, 19 9 4 found the respondent guilty of 
.
. , 
F 
offence punishable under Sections 27 9 and 30 4 A of the In-
. dian Pen al Coc;le,_ 18 6 1 (hereinafter for short the 'IPC') and 
l. r
sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a 
'( 
fine of Rs. 1, 0 0 0 I - and in default to further undergo RI for a 
period of three months. The appeal filed befor.e the Sessions 
G Judge, Bhiwani did not bring any relief to the respondent. There-
. after, as note.d above, the Revision Petition was filed which was 
. 
--<... 
. 
' 
' 
allowed by the impugned order. 
l-
3. n is the case of the prosecution that on 13. 2. 1 9 9 0. 
one Ka.rishi Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was 
H ·hitby_a bus belonging·.to HaryanaRoadways while coming from 
_f., 
. STATE OF HARYANA v. SHER SINGH 
959 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
the side of the Bus Stand. Being hit by the bus, Kan shi Ra m : A 
fell down and was removed to the hospital where he died. It 
was alleged that respondent was driving the offending vehicle. 
Accordingly, Fl R was lodged and investigation was undertaken. 
On completion thereof, chargesheet was filed. As accused 
pleaded innocence, trial was held. Nine witnesses were.exam-
B 
ined to further the prosecution version. Out of them, P W- 9 
Narender Singh was stated to be an eyewitness. P W- 9 who 
was supposed to be an eyewitness did not support the pros-
ecution version but placing reliance on the statement of the 
deceased before ASI Mahender Singh (P W- 8), which was C 
treated to be a dying declaration, the Trial Court found· the ac-
cused guilty and sentenced him, as aforesaid. The appeal was 
dismissed. In the revision, the primary stand was that the so-
called eyewitne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.