Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State vs Ajay Kumar Singh on 22 August, 1997
21. The Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that there are
material contradictions among the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses as discussed in the preceding para of judgment. To this
effect I am of the view that no doubt there are some contradictions
here and there, but same are minor one and which does not go to the
root of the case and hamper the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses. As far as the contradictions with respect to which wheel of
bus was run over by the body of the deceased, height of the
pavement, whether patri was damaged or not, distance of the dead
Page No. 20
body of the deceased and bus where it stopped etc. are concerned, I
am of the view that these contradictions will not change the factum of
accident and the circumstances of the case. It is further that the
event which has happened could not have been changed its result.
The case is pertaining to the year 1989 and the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses who came forward to depose in the court after
lapse of several years, certainly slight variations will be there in their
deposition and even from the most truthful and natural witness as
these minor contradictions are bound to occur due to lapse of time.
To this effect I rely upon observations held in a judgment cited as
1998 IADC Delhi 639 titled as " State Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh" where
Hon'
ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar and Hon'
ble Mr. Justice N.G.
Nandi observed as under :
" That the evidence of partly true and partly
false witness to that extent is considered
reliable and corroborative. We need not to
tally / discard the evidence of PWs, their
evidence has corroborative value. The
witnesses are not interested witnesses,
PW 3 is a natural witness. Even the most
of the witnesses might have some
discrepancies or minor contradictions in
their own statement regarding property. If
witnesses speak orally and give eye
Page No. 21
witness in their own words, there are
bound to be slight variations. One cannot
lose sight of normal human behaviour.
Section 103 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 1991
PW-1 who though became hostile yet also corroborated
the testimony of the other PWs in his cross examination in which he
stated that "... the accident had taken place with a DTC bus". So the
factum of accident through DTC bus driven by the accused is not
denied. Rather it has been admitted that the accident had taken
place, the reasons may be something else than the negligence of the
driver. The contention of Ld. Defence Counsel with respect to the
hostile witness i.e. PW-1 that his deposition should not be read
against the accused, but the credibility of the hostile witness cannot
be thrown away altogether. My this view is strengthen with the Apex
Court's case tilted as "Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh" cited in 1991 Crl. L.J. 2653 in which the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed as under :-
State Of U.P. vs Ballabh Das And Ors. on 2 August, 1985
I also rely upon the observations taken in case titled as
" State of U.P. Vs. Ballabh Dass" AIR 1985 SC 1384 that :
" ....What important in this connection is to
find out if there are any material
discrepancies. If the discrepancies go to
the root of the matter they will have some
bearing on the prosecution case.
Paras Nath vs State Of Delhi on 22 April, 2003
I also rely upon observations held in case titled as "Paras
Nath Vs. State of Delhi" 2003 [3] JCC 1500 wherein Hon'ble Mr.
Justice H.R. Malhotra observed that :-
State Of Gujarat A vs Haidarali Kalubhai on 3 February, 1976
25. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that there is no
negligence on the part of accused as has been alleged by the
prosecution which is remained unproved. In the criminal trial the
burden to prove everything whatsoever to the aspect of the charge
against accused is lying upon the prosecution and the prosecution
has to prove it beyond reasonable doubt by standing on its own legs.
To this effect I am of the view that in order to be encompassed the
protection under section 304-A, there should be neither intention nor
knowledge to cause death. When any of these two elements is found
to be present, section 304-A has no application. "When a speedy
Page No. 28
truck while taking a turn in open field hit a cot causing death of a
person who was resting on it, such death falls under section 304-A
because the driver obviously did not willfully drive the truck on the cot.
It was either a rash or a negligent act" as observed by the Apex Court
in case titled as "State of Gujarat Vs. Haidarali" AIR 1976 SC 1012.
In the instant case PW-2 HC Mangey Ram categorically stated that
"....at about 12.30 midnight a DTC Bus No. DEP number of which I
did not remember, came from entry gate of the railway station and on
the turn of footpath the rear wheel of the bus ran over the boy who
was sleeping over the footpath". PW2 further testified that the said
DTC bus was driven by the accused . PW-2 was cross examined by
accused but nothing material came out of it and he again turned up
for his cross examination on 03.02.2006 but he was not cross
examined as such the testimony of PW-2 has not been rebutted nor it
was challenged in any manner whatsoever. The other PWs have also
corroborated the testimony of PW-2 to the effect that the DTC bus
came from the entry gate of the railway station and on the turn of
footpath the rear wheel of the bus ran over the boy who was sleeping
over the footpath who died immediately at the spot. There is no cross
examination on this point by Ld. Defence Counsel. The testimony of
PW-1 and PW-2 are of the eye witnesses of the accident and
remaining PWs are the witnesses of the circumstantial evidence who
Page No. 29
have brought in evidence by way of photograph, mechanical
inspection report, duty slip of the accused, postmortem report,
registration of the case and other documents who were prepared
during the investigation and created nexus between the eye
witnesses and the documentary evidence. The negligence of
accused has also been proved by his own statement recorded U/s.
313 Cr. P.C. wherein he simply denied the evidence led by the
prosecution as false and incorrect but failed to produce any oral or
documentary proof in support of his contentions. I refer to the section
103 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides as under :
" Burden of proof as to particular fact: - The
burden of proof as to any particular fact
lies on that person who wishes the Court
to believe in its existence, unless it is
provided by any law that the proof of that
fact shall lie on any particular person.