State of Haryana v. Sher Singh

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 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 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 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-