9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1386 - SC - Indian LawsAccident - vehicle hit against a scooty and resultantly a two year old child travelling in the scooty fell down and the tractor ran over the child and she succumbed to the injury - main defence of the Appellant before the trial court was that there was no evidence to hold that he was the driver of the tractor at the relevant time - offences under Section 187 and 197 of the MV Act - HELD THAT - According to the prosecution, there is no direct evidence. Even the injured witness PW-5, who was driving the scooty, has not identified the driver. The High Court, on the only evidence that the Appellant was scolded by people in the hospital, has come to the conclusion that the Appellant was the driver of the tractor. There is also no direct evidence with regard to the ingredients of Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. The High Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, has taken another view so as to convict the accused. The High Court in the impugned judgment does not seem to have taken a view that the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused is based on no material or it is perverse or the view by the trial court is wholly unreasonable or it is not a plausible view or there is non-consideration of any evidence or there is palpable misreading of evidence, etc. - It is not the stand of the High Court that there had been some miscarriage of justice in the way the trial court has appreciated the evidence. On the contrary, it is the only stand of the High Court that on the available evidence, another view is also reasonably possible in the sense that the Appellant-accused could have been convicted. In such circumstances, the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal. The High Court itself having acquitted the Appellant under Section 187 of the MV Act on the ground of no evidence, whether it was possible, to hold him guilty under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, is itself a seriously doubtful question. However, it is not necessary to pronounce on that issue since the Appellant is liable to succeed otherwise. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused was the driver of the tractor at the relevant time. 2. Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. 3. Whether the High Court was justified in re-appreciating the evidence and reversing the order of acquittal by the trial court. 4. Whether the High Court's judgment was based on any material or if it suffered from any legal infirmity. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the accused was the driver of the tractor at the relevant time: The trial court found that there was doubt whether the accused was the driver at the relevant time. The evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimonies of PWs 1 to 11, did not conclusively establish the identity of the driver. The injured witness PW-5, who was driving the scooty, did not identify the driver. The High Court, however, concluded that the accused was the driver based on the evidence that the accused was scolded by people in the hospital. 2. Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the accused: The trial court concluded that there was no cogent, impeachable, and clinching evidence to prove the rash and negligent act of the accused. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found the accused guilty under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, but acquitted him under Sections 187 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act due to lack of evidence. 3. Whether the High Court was justified in re-appreciating the evidence and reversing the order of acquittal by the trial court: The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court can reappraise evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial court only if the trial court's judgment is perverse, meaning against the weight of evidence. The High Court did not find the trial court's conclusions perverse or based on no material. The Supreme Court cited several precedents, including Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan, and T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu, to support the principle that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal merely because another view is possible. 4. Whether the High Court's judgment was based on any material or if it suffered from any legal infirmity: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not claim that the trial court's judgment was based on no material or suffered from any legal infirmity. The High Court's decision was based on the possibility of another view being reasonably possible. The Supreme Court reiterated that if two views are reasonably possible on the same evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court's acquittal. The Supreme Court cited cases such as Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana and Kallu alias Masih and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh to emphasize that the appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's view is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of evidence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal merely because another view was possible, especially when the trial court's judgment was not perverse or based on no material.
|
