Deep Singh vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 10524 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10524 Raj
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Deep Singh vs State on 8 December, 2023

Author: Praveer Bhatnagar

Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar

[2023:RJ-JD:41306]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 658/2004

Deep Singh S/o Jagmal Singh, B/c Rajpurt, R/o Sikhrali, P.S.
Rajaldesar, District Churu. Presently residing at Ward No.40,
Sureshiya, Hanumangarh Junctin, District Hanumangarh
(presently lodged at District Hanumangarh)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Dr. RDSS Kharlia
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Sharwan Kumar, Dy.GA



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Judgment

08/12/2023

1. This criminal revision petition is preferred against the

judgment dated 15.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal

No.122/2003, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the

appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated

08.01.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

cum Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case

No.100/2001 (253/2000), whereby the petitioner has been

convicted for the offences under Section 279 IPC and was

sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment alongwith

a fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 337 IPC and was sentenced

to undergo one month's simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of

Rs.500/- and under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to

[2023:RJ-JD:41306] (2 of 5) [CRLR-658/2004]

undergo two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of

Rs.4,000/-

2. In the nutshell, brief facts of the case are that on 18.06.2000

at about 11.45 P.M. Mangla Ram submitted a parcha bayan that he

is Driver of the Jeep No.RJ-31-C-1178; in the evening, at about

8.30 P.M. Deep Singh, brother of Sunil-Satyanarayan and nephew

Ajaykant were traveling towards Sangaria and he was driving the

jeep; at about 10.45 P.M. when they reached near the Satipura

Fathak at Hanumangarh a Tankar bearing registration No.RNG 339

driven rashly and negligently, came from the opposite side and

collided with their Jeep; as a result of which, Satyanarayan and

Ajaykant suffered injuries and were taken to the nearby hospital;

later on, Satyanarayan succumbed to the injuries. On account of

which, an FIR No.300/2000 was registered at Police Station

Hanumangarh Junction for the offences under Sections 279, 337 &

304-A IPC against an unknown person. After investigation,

charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioner before

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh and later on,

the case was transferred to the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, First Class Hanumangarh; after trial, the court

convicted the present petitioner for the offences under Sections

304-A, 279 and 337 IPC.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in

the present case, the Investigating Officer did not conduct test

identification parade and during trial PW-2 Mangla Ram has first

time identified the accused in the Court. The said identification is

highly doubtful as PW-2 Mangla Ram did not know the accused

earlier. It is further submitted that the incident occurred in the

[2023:RJ-JD:41306] (3 of 5) [CRLR-658/2004]

night and it was not possible to see the Driver of the erring

vehicle, who fled away from the place of occurrence, therefore, it

is highly doubtful that PW-2 Mangla Ram saw the present

petitioner driving the erring vehicle and his evidence is not

trustworthy. It is submitted that owner of the erring vehicle has

denied that accused petitioner was driving the said vehicle and

merely on the basis of endorsement, indicating the accused

petitioner as driver, is not enough to hold that the petitioner was

driving the erring vehicle, thus, the prosecution has failed to prove

the fact that accused petitioner was driving the erring vehicle. It is

submitted that the learned trial court as well as the appellate

court have erred in their finding, therefore, the revision petition

may be allowed and accused petitioner may be acquitted for the

offences under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner. He supported the judgments passed by the learned trial

court as well as the appellate court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

6. It is evident from the evidence that no identification parade

was conducted by the concerned Investigating Officer and PW-2

Mangla Ram after almost one year of the incident, first time

identified the accused in the Court and his examination-in-chief

was recorded on 09.07.2001. It is also admitted that the

occurrence took place in the night and lights of both the vehicles

were broken and there was no other source of light, hence, it is

highly improbable that a Driver of the other vehicle could

[2023:RJ-JD:41306] (4 of 5) [CRLR-658/2004]

identified the Driver of the erring vehicle in the night. It is also

admitted that the Driver of the erring vehicle fled away from the

place of incident and no identification parade was conducted by

the concerned Investigating Officer. PW-2 Mangla Ram was not

knowing the Driver and in that circumstances, it becomes

moresoever improbable that he saw the petitioner as driving of

the erring vehicle. There is no other substantive evidence

produced by the prosecution, which shows that at the relevant

time the accused petitioner was driving the vehicle. The owner of

the vehicle PW-1 Mangilal has accepted that after issuance of

notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act, he wrote as

under:-

"mDr Vsadj ij MªkbZoj fnilhag s/o txeky lhag tkrh jktiwr fuoklh lqjslh;k okMZ ua- 40 dk gS ?kVuk ds oDr mDr Vsadj dks fnilhag pyk jgk Fkk tks lrhiwjk ls lqjslh;k vk jgk FkkA"

7. In the Court PW-1 has denied that accused petitioner was

driving the vehicle. As already stated, the reliability of PW-1 -

Mangilal is a question mark and in absence of any identification

parade, during investigation, it is unsafe to held that petitioner

was driving the erring vehicle. Further, the evidence of PW-1

Mangilal is not a substantive piece of evidence and it is merely a

piece of corroborative evidence, therefore, I am of the view that

the learned trial court as well as the appellate court erred in

holding the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A,

279 and 337 IPC.

8. Resultantly, the instant criminal revision petition is allowed

and the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2004 passed by the