Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
SATNAM SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/1999
BENCH:
G.B. PATTANAIK, M.B.Shah,
JUDGMENT:
PATTANAIK.J.
The appellant, a truck driver was convicted under
Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life
by the learned 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.
The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 26.8.92 at
10.55 p.m., deceased Munir Khan was going on his scooter and
the appellant who was the truck driver, intentionally dashed
against him and crushed him under the truck, as a result of
which, said Munir Khan died. Initially, a case under
Section 304A IPC had been registered but later on, charge-
sheet was filed under Section 302 IPC and the appellant was
convicted under Section 302 IPC, as already stated. PW4
gave a report at Suratgarh Police Station, Exh.P4 at 11.15
p.m., which was treated as F.I.R. and the police started
investigation. On the basis of the said F.I.R., PW 1O
registered a case under Section 304A IPC. The investigation
was then handed over to PW15, who rushed to hospital and
learnt that the injured had died and, therefore, the
case was converted to one under Sec.302 IPC. PWs 5,6 and 8
are supposed to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence.
According to the prosecution case, the accused had some
dispute with one Mohan Singh and in a panchayat held, it was
settled that Mohan Singh will pay some compensation to the
accused and victim Munir Khan guaranteed for the payment,
but as no money was paid and the guarantor did not discharge
his obligation, the accused took the extreme step of taking
away his life. Of the three eye witnesses, examined by the
prosecution, the trial judge disbelieved PWs 6 and 8 but
relied upon the evidence of PW5 and the motive as already
stated, and came to the conclusion that the accused
committed murder of the deceased by crushing him under his
truck. Though the prosecution also relied upon the extra-
judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused
to PW3 but the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High
Court did not rely upon the same and excluded the so-called
extra-judicial confession from the purview of
consideration. ’The High Court apart from relying upon PW5
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
also relied upon PWs 6 and 8 in arriving at the conclusion
that the case is one of murder.
Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the
appellant contended before us that the evidence of the three
eye-witnesses PWs 5, 6 and 8 could not have been relied upon
in view of several material omissions in their statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the courts committed
error in relying upon the same. The learned counsel further
contended that even if the evidence of PW5 is relied upon,
who saw the accused getting- down ..from the trucks and
running away from the place of occurrence, then at the most
the offence can be said to be one under Section 304A and not
under Sec.302 inasmuch as it is- difficult to hold that the
accused appellant, intentionally crushed the deceased under
his truck.
Mr. U.R.Lalit, learned senior counsel, appearing for
the informant and Mr. S.K Jain, appearing for the State, on
the other band contended that the High Court rightly relied
upon the evidence of PWs 6 and 8, who categorically indicate
that the accused was waiting for the deceased to come by the
road and then as soon as he saw the deceased coming on
scooter, the accused crushed him under his speeding, truck
and, therefore, the offence is one of murder and conviction
under Section 302 is unassailable. According to Mr. Lalit,
the motive having been. established namely the deceased was
the guarantor and yet could not make the necessary payment
to the accused and the accused having a grudge on that score
and the circumstances under which the truck ran over the
scooter, clearly establishes the fact that the accused
intentionally killed the deceased and it is not a case of
rash and negligent driving.
From the autopsy report and the evidence of the
doctor, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that
the deceased while was moving on his scooter, the truck
No.RSC -1313 dashed against him and run over him, as a
result of which the deceased died and as such the death is
homicidal in nature, in fact the conclusion of the Forums
below that the deceased met a homicidal death .lias not been
assailed in this Court. The F.I.R.was lodged by PW4,
immediately after the occuirence and it gives a vivid
account as to how the scooter of the deceased came under
Truck No. RSC-1313, which was coming at a high speed. The
truck belongs to the accused is established through the
prosecution evidence. The evidence of PW5 further indicates
that he saw accused getting down from the truck and running
away from the place of occurrence after the accident. The
fact that the truck belongs to the accused read with the
evidence ofPW5 that he saw the accused, getting down from
the truck and running away after the accident establishes
the fact that at the
relevant point of time, the accused was driving the
truck which dashed against the scooter on which deceased was
going. The crucial question that arises for consideration
however is whether the materials produced by the prosecution
establishes the fact that the accused intentionally dashed
against the scooter of the deceased and crushed over the
deceased at the relevant point of time. It is to be noticed
that thorgh PW4 lodged the F.I.R., immediately after the
occurrence but the names of the three eye-witnesses PWs 5, 6
and 8 had not been mentioned therein. But that would not by
itself impeach the Credibility of the three eye witnesses.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
The question whether the accused dashed against the deceased
intentionally to cause his death would depend upon the
evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses PWs 5, 6 and 8.
So far e- The informant PW4 is concerned, though according
to his evidence, he was at a distance of 30 pa as from the
truck when the truck hit the scooter and he knew the accused
Satnam Singh since long years and there was huge electric
light on the place of incident, yet he could not
identify Satnam Singh, dri\ing the trucker stepping down 1}
om the truck and running away. PW5 also knows the:
deceased as well as the accused and according to his
evidence, while he was going on foot towards his house from
railway station, the incident occurred. He saw a scooter
being dashed by a truck from behind and went ahead. He
could lurther see Satnam Singh stepping down from the truck
and running away toward; colony. Mr. Sashil Kumar
contended before ustliat no reliance should be placed on his
testimony as his statement under Sec .161 Cr.P.C. was
recorded after three days of the occurrence and he had not
informed about the occurrence to any person, lie also
referred to several omissions in his statement recorded
under Sec. 161 but on going through those omissions, we are
unable to persuade ourselves to discard the testimony
altogether. But even if we rely on the statement of this.
witness; the said evidence would not establish the offence
of murder under Sec.302 IPC and at
the most the offence committed would be one under
Sec.304A IPC. So far as the evidence of PW6 is concerned,
he is supposed to have been present at the betel leaf shop
and while taking the betel leaf, he was going on the road,
the truck which was parked and accused Satnam Singh was
standing near the truck; was waiting and watching for
somebody and according to his evidence as soon as the
deceased Munir Khan carne on a scooter, Satnam started his
truck, chased the scooter and drove the truck at high speed,
and hit the scooter of Munir Khan. If this evidence is
accepted, then it must be held that the accused committed
the offence of murder. But the question for consideration
is whether the statement of this witness can at all be
relied upon. From the cross-examination of this witness it
appears that in his earlier statement recorded under Sec.
161 Cr.P.C., which is . Exhibit D-3, he had not. even
indicated that he had seen the occurrence. ti has also been
elicited that he did not inform any person that the truck
was being driven by Satnam
Singh by which accident had occurred. He offered
explanation that when he disclosed this fact to his brother
on his way to the hospital, his brother prevailed upon him
not to indulge in the dispute and it is on that score he had
not disclosed it to any other person. But before meeting
his brother when he met PW4 at the place of accident, even
then he had not intimated PW4 that the accused was driving
the vehicle. No reason could be indicated as to why PW4 was
not intimated by PW6 that it is the accused who was driving
the vehicle, even if the details might not have been stated.
In his earlier statement, even if the had not stated that he
met his brother at some distance away from the place of
occurrence and the fact that his brother forbade him not to
indulge in the dispute, even he had gone to the hospital and
there also he had not disclosed the incident to any person
in the hospital nor informed the name of Satnam Singh. This
being the fact situation and the witness concerned having
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
made such material omissions from his earlier statement
recorded under
Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., it is difficult to rely upon the
testimony of this witness for the purpose of coining to a
conclusion that the accused was waiting by parking his truck
for the arrival of the deceased and as soon as he saw the
deceased coming on the .scooter, then his truck dashed
against the deceased. To the same effect is the evidence of
PW8, who was with PW6 and after taking betel leaf was going
on the road. Both PWs 6 and 8 were examined by the police
after three days even though they were available in the
hospital when the police had gone earlier on the next
morning on 27.8.92 when the site plan was being prepared by
the police as would appear from the evidence of PW4. No
reasonable explanation is coming forth, from the
Investigating Officer, as to why : the two vital witnesses
were not examined for three days. Then again if the
cross-examination of PWS is scrutinized, it would appear
that he a.lso bad not informed the name of Satnam Singh as
the person driving the truck, either to Pradip Bishnoi or to
any other person. According to his evidence in Court he did
mention the name of the accused driver but in his statement
under Exh. P5, recorded by the police under Sec. 161
Cr.P.C. the same does not tmd place. He admits that he had
not disclosed this fact to any person in the hospital that
Satnam Singh was driving the truck. He also admits that he
did not disclose any information to the police even on the
next day. On going through the evidence of these two
witnesses, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned
Sessions Judge rightly did not rely upon PWs 6 and 8 and the
High Court erroneously ignored the infirmities in the
evidence of these two witnesses. In our opinion, no
reliance can be placed on the evidence of the a foresaid two
witnesses. If we ignore the evidence of PWs6 and 8 from the
consideration, then on the evidence ofPW5, it is difficult
to hold that a case of murder by intentionally driving the
vehicle at a high speed and then crusing over the deceased
by the truck can be said to have been made out beyond
reasonable doubt. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to
establish the offence under Section 302 IPC. We,
accordingly, set aside the conviction of the appellant under
Sec. 302 IPC and the sentence passed thereunder and convict
him under Section 304A IPC and sentence him to undergo
imprisonment for a term of two years. Since the accused
appellant is in custody ’ever since his arrest in 1992, the
accused appellant be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is
required in any other case. Criminal appeal is allowed.