Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhanwarlal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:24419) on 9 May, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:24419]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 419/2005

Laxmandan S/o Khodidan, R/o Padarli Charanan, PS Chitalvana,
Tehsil Sanchore District Jalore
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                      ----Respondent
                                 Connected With
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 404/2005
Bhanwarlal S/o Babu Lal R/o Gunga, Tehsil Shiv District Barmer
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Amitabh Acharya
                                   Mr. Vijay Purohit
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Sharavan Singh Rathore, Dy.G.A.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

09/05/2025

1. These criminal revision petitions have been filed by the

petitioners challenging the judgment and order of conviction

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sanchore,

District Jalore in criminal Original Case No.169/1998, whereby the

petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:-

Name of the Offence for Substantive Fine and default accused which sentence sentence convicted Laxman Dan Section 279 IPC 3 Month's SI Fine of Rs.500/- each Bhanwar Lal and indefault to further undergo 15 days' SI Section337 IPC 3 Month's SI Fine of Rs.500/- each and indefault to further undergo 15

[2025:RJ-JD:24419] (2 of 7) [CRLR-419/2005]

days'SI Section 338 IPC One year's SI Fine of Rs.500/- each and indefault to further undergo 15 days' SI Section 304-A IPC Two years'SI Fine of Rs.1,000/-

each and indefault to further undergo one month's SI

The appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed by

the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore vide order

dated 05.05.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.2/2001 &

54/2000. As per counsel of Bhanwar Lal-petitioner, he died during

pendency of the Appeal, thus the revision petition (404/2005) is

abated to his extent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an accident occurred on

31.01.1998 involving two vehicles: one driven by Petitioner

Bhawarlal and the other by Petitioner Laxman Dan. The

prosecution alleged that due to the rash and negligent driving of

both petitioners, the said accident occurred resulting in the death

of some persons and injuries to others.

2.1. As per Exhibit P-48, the Parcha Bayan of victim Jagmal Ram

recorded by the police, he was a passenger in the jeep driven by

Petitioner Laxman Dan. It is alleged therein that an Armada jeep

came from the opposite side and the driver Laxman Dan, failed to

provide adequate space, resulting in a head-on collision. Based on

this statement, FIR Exhibit P-49 was registered.

3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through

the record. Upon perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution,

the following observations emerge:

[2025:RJ-JD:24419] (3 of 7) [CRLR-419/2005]

• PW1 Poonmaram could not explain the manner of the

accident and only confirmed that there was a collision

between the two vehicles.

• PW2 Jagmal Ram, contrary to his first-hand narrative in

Exhibit P-48, stated before the Court that the jeep in which

he was sitting was hit by the Armada jeep. In expressed

terms, in his oath statement he held the Armada driver

responsible, who, as per records, was Petitioner Bhawarlal.

His Court statement contradicts his earlier version in the

Parcha Bayan and FIR.

• PW4 Suresh and PW5 Malaram were failed to narrate how

the accident took place or who was at fault.

• PW6 Dashrath Giri, a passenger in the Armada jeep driven

by accused Bhawarlal, stated that Bhawarlal was driving

properly on the correct side of the road and that the jeep

driven by Laxman Dan came at a high speed and hit their

vehicle. His version directly contradicts the testimony of PW2

Jagmal Ram and others.

• PW7 Dhanna and PW8 Jeeva did not witness the actual cause

of the accident.

• PW9 Smt. Surti, a passenger in the Armada jeep, stated that

the vehicle coming from the opposite direction was at high

speed and responsible for the accident. However, she was

declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution.

• PW10 Chutraram is not a witness to the incident.

[2025:RJ-JD:24419] (4 of 7) [CRLR-419/2005]

• PW11 Roopdas, who was in the jeep driven by Bhawarlal,

also attributed fault to the other vehicle. He too was declared

hostile.

• PW12 Hameera, is a passenger of Laxman Dan's jeep, stated

that the vehicle was overloaded and blamed Laxman Dan for

the mishap.

• PW13 Jayantilal also stated that Laxman Dan was driving

rashly and negligently but turned hostile to some extent.

• PW14 Krishna, mother of Bhawarlal, blamed the driver of the

opposite jeep but made hostile statements.

• PW15 Smt. Kavita corroborated the version of PW10.

• PW16 Smt. Tara, who was in the jeep driven by Bhawarlal,

presented a new version, claiming that their jeep was in

stationary condition when it was hit. She too turned hostile

on various aspects.

• PW18 Mouji Ram, the Station House Officer, investigated the

place of occurrence and seized both vehicles. He opined that

both drivers were responsible for the mishap due to rash and

negligent driving.

After careful scrutiny and upon a thorough examination of

the evidence on record and the findings of the learned trial Court,

this Court finds that the prosecution failed to bring forth any

clinching, definite, and reliable evidence to conclusively establish

the guilt of either petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. While one

set of witnesses attributed fault to petitioner Bhawarlal, another

[2025:RJ-JD:24419] (5 of 7) [CRLR-419/2005]

set clearly indicated petitioner Laxman Dan to be responsible.

Indeed, mishap took place and may be both the accused were

responsible but the law demands proving of fact beyond every

shadow of reasonable doubt. The prosecution's case is fraught

with contradictions and inconsistencies.

3.1. It is well settled that to establish guilt under Sections 279

and 304A IPC, the prosecution must lead concrete, credible

evidence proving that a particular accused was driving the vehicle

rashly or negligently and that the said act was the direct cause of

the accident and resultant injuries or deaths. The doctrine of

negligence in criminal prosecution can be applied only when

positive reliable evidence is brought on record to substantiate the

charge.

3.2. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal

proof. In a criminal case, conviction cannot be based on

preponderance of probabilities or hypothesis; it must rest on legal

proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The doctrine of negligence in

criminal jurisprudence must be based on solid and affirmative

evidence, which is absent in the present case.

3.3. This Court further notes that several witnesses are relatives

of petitioner Bhawarlal and have made exculpatory statements to

shield him while shifting blame to Petitioner Laxman Dan.

Simultaneously, witnesses in the vehicle of Laxman Dan blamed

the other vehicle. These narratives, when compared with their

previous statements, show material contradictions and

inconsistencies. The truth and falsehood are so inextricably mixed

[2025:RJ-JD:24419] (6 of 7) [CRLR-419/2005]

that it is not possible to separate the grain from the chaff.

Therefore, it is apparent that the Trial Court erred in convicting

both the accused simultaneously without adequate supporting

evidence against each. Simply because some witnesses point

towards one accused does not automatically establish the guilt of

the other in the absence of definite proof.

4. The interpretation of Section 304A by Sir Lawrence Jenkins

in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, 4 Bom.L.R. 679, was

referred with approval. It was held:

"To impose criminal liability under s. 304-A, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the cause causans; it is not enough that it may have been the cause sine qua non."

In view of the above analysis, and guided by the law laid

down in Emperor V. Omkar Ram pratap (Supra) this Court

finds that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of

proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the revision

petition deserves to be accepted.

5. Accordingly the revision petition No.419/2005 is allowed. The

impugned judgments and orders of conviction passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sanchore, District Jalore in

criminal Original Case No.169/1998 and confirmed by the learned

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore vide order dated

05.05.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.2/2001 & 54/2000 are

hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted