SYAD AKBAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 25-07-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• ? 
, 
• • 
SYAD AKBAR 
v • 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
July 25, 1979 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
95 
Evidence Act-Res ipsa loquitur-If applicable in criminal trials-Appellani 
driving a bus 011 a narrow road with deep ditches on both sides-A child suddenly 
atte1npts to cross the road-Bus swerved to riglzt-Child crushed to death-
Prosecution declared eye witness hostile-Driver-If could be held negligent. 
Hostile witnesses-Cross-examined by prosecution-Their evidence-If could 
be treated as washed off the record. 
The appellant, who was a driver of a bus, was driving the vehicle by a 
road which ran through a< village. On either side of the road there were deep 
ditches. A n101her who \\'as going from the village on the left side of the road 
to the fields on the right, was being followed at some distance by her daughter 
(the deceased), a girl of four years. Before crossing the road the mother 
stopped on the left side and remonstrated with the girl to go home. Tl.ten 
crossing the road at that point the mother descended on the right side of the 
road a-nd went out of sight, 
In the meantime the bus had slowed down 
because a few feet away it had to cross a narrow bridge. 
The child, which 
by then reached the left side of the road, seemed to be in two minds whether 
to cross the 1oad or go back. She, however, dashed across the road with a 
suddenness. The driver blew tlte horn and to save 
the chlid from 
accident 
swerved the vehicle to the right. But the child by then crtn1e under the left 
front \Vheel and was crushed to death. 
The appellant's defence was that the accident could not be avoided in the 
circumstances of the case despite the best care taken by hiJn to avoid it. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Alleging that there were considerable discrepancies in the statements of the 
F 
eye.witnesses, between what they stated to the police and what they stated at 
the trial, the prosecution attempted to impeach their credit and treated all of 
them as hostile. 
The Sessions !udge agreed with the view of the trial court about the un-
reliability of t'!J.e eye-witnesses, mainly because they had been treated 'hostile' 
and cross-examined by the prosecution. He concluded that even if the evidence 
G 
of the eye·witnesses, who had been treated by the prosecution as hostile, was 
discarded in its entirety, then also on the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the 
circun1stance and nature of the accident itself, was sufficient to hold that the 
acc.ident was clue to rash and negligent driving by the accused. 
Thf: fligh Court af£rn1ed the view of the Sessions Judge that the principle 
of rt~t ipsa loquitur \\'as attra<:ted to the facts of the case. 
H 
In appeaJ to this Court the two questions for consideration were : (i) 
whether the courts below were right in discarding the evidence of the eye wit-
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
nesses on the ground that they were treated hostile by the proseculion an..:l.t 
cross-examined; and (ii) whether the principle res ipsa loquitur was applicable 
in criminal proceedings and, if so, whether it could be invoked in the circum-
stances of the caie to presume rashness and negligence. on the appellant's part. 
B 
c 
Allowing the· appeal. 
HELD : 1. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be rejected 
wholesale merely on the ground that the prosecution had dubbed the111 hostile 
and had cross-exan1ined them. 
Even in a criminal prosecution when a \vitness 
is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party 
calling hin1, his evidence ca·nnot be~ as a matter of Jaw, treated as wa::;hcd 
off the record altogether. 
It is for the Judge of fact tu consider in each case 
whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness 
stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his. 
testimony. If, in a. given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is· 
impugned and in the process the witness stands totally discredited, the Judge. 
should as a matter of prudence discard his evidence in toto. 
[101F-H] 
Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration [1976] 2 S.C.R. 11, followed. 
In the instant case the courts belov;' were not justified in brushing 
asid~· 
D 
the testimony of the witnesses, 
The eye 
·witnesse~ \'i'ere only asked omnibus 
questions r:nd were not contradicted on material 
f;~cts a-nd their credit with 
regard to their testimony in examination-in-chief had not been shaken in cross-
examiaati

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.