Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hanuman Singh vs State on 20 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26799]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 180/2005
Hanuman Singh, S/o Sawai Singh, R/o Khara Rajiyasar, PS
Salasar, District Churu, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 20/05/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 20/06/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred on behalf of
the accused-petitioner challenging the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2003 passed
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, in Criminal Case
No.134/1999, whereby he was convicted for offences under
Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He was
sentenced to undergo 2 years' imprisonment along with a
fine of ₹10,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A, and 6
months' imprisonment with a fine of ₹500/- for the offence
under Section 279 IPC, with further direction to undergo
imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The said
conviction and sentence were affirmed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar, by
[2025:RJ-JD:26799] (2 of 5) [CRLR-180/2005]
judgment dated 03.03.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.22/2003,
which was filed by the petitioner and came to be dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an accident took
place on 04.04.1999, in which a truck hit a scooter, as a
result of which the scooter driver, Deshraj, and one other
individual sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The
FIR was lodged at the instance of Dharmendra Kumar (PW-
2), who, however, admitted that he had no knowledge of
who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
3. PW-1, Suresh Kumar, stated that he was proceeding towards
Ward No.5 behind the victim's scooter when he suddenly saw
a truck hit the scooter and flee the scene. However, this
witness was unable to identify the person who was driving
the truck. PW-2, Dharmendra Kumar, was examined during
trial on 14.02.2001. In his examination-in-chief, he claimed
that he saw the accused, Hanuman Singh, driving the vehicle
that caused the accident. Notably, this assertion was absent
in both the FIR and his earlier statements recorded during
investigation. Furthermore, he admitted that he saw the
accused for the first time two years later in the courtroom
dock. Clearly, this amounts to a material improvement
without any satisfactory explanation by the prosecution. It is
an admitted factual position that the accused was not
personally known to this witness, and that no Test
Identification Parade was conducted during investigation or
[2025:RJ-JD:26799] (3 of 5) [CRLR-180/2005]
thereafter. This Court is firmly of the opinion that the
testimony of PW-2 cannot be relied upon to convict the
accused on such shaky grounds. The law is now well settled
that the first-time identification of an accused during trial, in
the absence of a prior Test Identification Parade, carries no
evidentiary value.
4. PW-3, Satnamdas, is not a witness to the accident and thus
his testimony warrants no detailed discussion. PW-4, Daulat
Singh, the owner of the truck, clearly admitted in his cross-
examination that he was not sure who was driving the
vehicle at the time of the accident. PW-5, Ram Lal, was only
a witness to certain memos prepared during investigation.
PW-6, Dr. Ratan Lal, being the medical officer, was not a
witness to the core issue. PW-7, Lekhraj, took photographs
of the crime scene. PW-8, Raj Kumar, arrived at the spot
after receiving information of the accident, and his testimony
does not help establish the identity of the driver. PW-9,
Shyam Lal, is not a witness to any fact in issue. PW-10, Shiv
Lal, deposed about the mechanical examination of the
vehicle, while PW-11, Jirrudin, the investigating officer,
admitted during his deposition that no investigation was
carried out to ascertain who was actually driving the truck at
the relevant time.
5. In cases involving Section 304-A IPC, which deals with
causing death by rash or negligent act, the prosecution
[2025:RJ-JD:26799] (4 of 5) [CRLR-180/2005]
carries a strict burden to prove not only the commission of
the negligent act but also that such act was the direct and
proximate cause of the death. It is not sufficient to establish
a mere possibility or remote connection. The principle of
causa causans -- the immediate and effective cause -- must
be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the celebrated case
of Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, 4 Bom. L.R. 679, the
Bombay High Court lucidly held that for imposing criminal
liability under Section 304-A IPC, it is necessary that the
death should be the direct result of a rash and negligent act
of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and
efficient cause, without intervention of another's negligence.
It is not enough that the act may have been a causa sine
qua non (a necessary condition). Applying this principle, it
becomes crucial that the identity of the accused as the driver
of the vehicle be established with clarity. In the present case,
not only is the identity of the driver uncertain, but also the
prosecution has failed to eliminate all reasonable doubt
regarding the accused's involvement. The lack of any
independent eyewitness identification, absence of Test
Identification Parade, and improvements made in witness
statements cast serious doubt on the prosecution case. It is
trite law that a conviction cannot rest on doubtful or
improved testimony, and any benefit of doubt must
necessarily go to the accused. A mere suspicion, however
strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. Hence, in the
absence of cogent evidence connecting the accused with the
[2025:RJ-JD:26799] (5 of 5) [CRLR-180/2005]
act of rash or negligent driving, the conviction cannot be
sustained in law.
6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned trial court failed to
properly appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the case
and committed a grave error in convicting the accused.
Consequently, the finding of guilt is not sustainable and
deserves to be quashed. Similarly, the appellate court failed
to exercise its appellate jurisdiction in reappraising the
material on record and merely affirmed the erroneous
findings of the trial court. Accordingly, the instant revision
petition succeeds.
7. As a result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned trial court, as well as the judgment
passed by the appellate court, are hereby quashed and set
aside.
8. The petitioner is acquitted of all charges. He is already on
bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. He is not required to
surrender.
9. The record be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
1-chhavi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
