Holding

The conviction under sections 279 and 304A cannot be sustained as the evidence does not specifically link the accused to the rash driving, and the acquittal is upheld.

Summary

The State of Haryana charged Sher Singh with rash driving and causing death by negligence under IPC sections 279 and 304A after a bus he was alleged to be driving struck a pedestrian who later gave a dying declaration. The trial court and the first appellate court convicted him, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted him, holding that the dying declaration did not name the driver and there was no material linking Sher Singh to the vehicle at the time of the accident. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. It found that the evidence was scanty, the deceased’s statement did not specifically identify the accused, and the eyewitness did not corroborate the prosecution’s version. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s acquittal.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the bus at the time of the accident.
Whether a dying declaration that does not name the driver can be the basis for conviction under sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 397, s. 401
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 279, s. 304A

Subjects

rash drivingnegligencedying declarationevidentiary burdenacquittalconviction reversalIPC 279IPC 304Acriminal law

Judgment

[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
J.
f.
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
sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a
l.
'( r
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
Judge, Bhiwani did not bring any relief to the respondent. There-
G
. 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
. 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 eyewitness having not supported the prosecution case
and th~re being no material to show that the vehicle was being
dr'iven in a rash and/or negligent manner, the conviction cannot D
be maintained. The High ·court found that the so-called eyewit-
ness did not support the prosecution version. Additionally, in
_f.,
the dying declaration there was no specific mention about rash
and negligent driving. Therefore, the acquittal was directed .
• J IE
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for.the appel- ·
'lant submitted that the High Court ought not to have upset the
·conviction, as recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the
, FirstAppellqte Court. He pointed out that/in the statement made
before P W - 8, it is categorically stated that the vebicle which . F
hit him was being driven in ·a rash and negligent manner. He
also pointed-out that the official of the Haryana Roadways (P
W- 5) clearly stated that the bus on the particular date was allot-
ted to the accused- respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judg- . G
ment of the High Court,

6. Though there is substance in the plea of the learned
counsel for the appellant that there was mention about the rash
and negligent driving of the vehicle, but the evidence
. -adduced
. H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A to link the accused to the alleged crime is scanty. There was no
specific material to show that the respondent was driving the
vehicle at t11e time the accident took place. Name of the re-
spondent was not mentioned in the dying declaration. It wa$
duly stated by the victim that he can identify the driver. But he
8 did not refer to the accused. Therefore, we do not consider it to
be a fit case where any interference is called for. The appeal
fails and the same is dismissed. "'+·
8.8.8. Appeal dismissed.

J-