9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Reliability of hostile witnesses' testimony. 2. Application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur in criminal proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Reliability of Hostile Witnesses' Testimony: The court examined whether the lower courts were correct in discarding the evidence of eyewitnesses solely because they were treated as hostile by the prosecution. The police statements of the eyewitnesses were not specifically confronted by the prosecution during cross-examination. The witnesses were not contradicted on material facts such as the speed of the vehicle, the blowing of the horn, and the sudden swerving of the vehicle to avoid the child. The court reiterated that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected wholesale merely because the prosecution had treated him as hostile and cross-examined him. This principle was supported by the decision in Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, where it was held that the evidence of a witness, even if cross-examined by the party calling him, cannot be entirely disregarded. The court concluded that the lower courts were not justified in brushing aside the testimony of the eyewitnesses, as their credibility on material points was not shaken. 2. Application of the Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Criminal Proceedings: The court analyzed whether the principle of res ipsa loquitur, which belongs to the law of torts, could be applied in criminal proceedings to presume rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. The principle suggests that the mere occurrence of an accident may imply negligence if the event is of a kind that does not happen in the ordinary course of things without negligence. However, the court noted that this principle is primarily used in civil cases and is not a rule of substantive law but rather an aid in evaluating evidence. In criminal cases, the burden of proof always rests on the prosecution, and the presumption of innocence must be maintained until proven otherwise. The court emphasized that in criminal proceedings, negligence must be culpable or gross, not merely an error of judgment. The court found that the lower courts had incorrectly invoked the principle of res ipsa loquitur by presuming negligence based on the fact that the bus swerved to the extreme right side of the road. The accused provided a reasonable explanation for his actions, supported by eyewitness testimony, indicating that he swerved to avoid the child and prevent the bus from falling into a ditch. The court concluded that the accident occurred due to an error of judgment rather than negligence or lack of driving skill. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the child's death by negligent or rash driving. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and provided detailed reasoning for its decision, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the credibility of hostile witnesses and the inapplicability of the principle of res ipsa loquitur in criminal proceedings.
|
