Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bheru Puri vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:24330) on 20 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:24330]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1300/2007
Bheru Puri S/o Mohanpuri, aged about 45 years, R/o Sindhi
Colony, Vijainagar, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer
(present at sub-jail Gulabpura)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/05/2025
1. The instant revision petition is directed against judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 22.05.2007 passed by
learned ACJM, Gulabpura in Case No.74/2003 as well against the
judgment of Court of Appeal dated 21.11.2007 whereby the
conviction and order of sentence was affirmed. The petitioner was
was convicted as described in the table below:-
Conviction under Punishment for Fine in Rs.
Section
279 of IPC Six months S.I. Rs.1,000/- and in
case of default 15
days' S.I.
337 of IPC One month S.I. Rs.500/- and in case
of default 7 days'
S.I.
304-A of IPC Two years S.I. Rs.5,000/- and in
case of default 3
months' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:24330] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1300/2007]
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record of the case. As per the story narrated in the
FIR Exhibit-P1 lodged at the instance of Bhagwat Singh PW-1, an
accident took place in which a passenger bus hit a van coming
from the side of Gulabpura. The driver of the bus fled away from
the spot soon after the incident, before the arrival of PW-1
Bhagwat Singh. The van driver and his wife were in the van and
were immediately evacuated to the nearest hospital, where,
during treatment Bhanwar Singh succumbed to injuries received
by him and the victim sustained injuries.
3. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested and after
proceeding, he was charge-sheeted for committing offences under
Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of of IPC. After taking cognizance
and framing of charges, the trial commenced, and eight witnesses
were examined in the trial. The main thrust of the case wholly and
majorly depends on the testimony of PW-1 Bhagwat Singh. In his
own oath statement, he stated about the manner of accident. As
per him, he and one other person were riding cycle on the road.
He saw a bus coming from village Lamba at high speed and hitting
the van. After hitting the vehicle, the driver ran away from spot
before they reached. They noticed the van driver and his wife in
an injured condition in the van. Neither does he allege who was
driving the vehicle or whether the vehicle was being driven rashly
or negligently, or as a necessary consequence of which the
incident took place resulting in the death of one and injury to
other.
4. PW-2, Bharat Singh recites the same things as stated by PW-
1 Bhagat Singh. He is oblivion about the driver of the bus who hit
[2025:RJ-JD:24330] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1300/2007]
the van. PW-3 Shyam Singh reached later after the accident. PW-4
Bheru Lal was also not present when the accident took place. He
reached the spot after a while. PW-5 Shankar Singh investigated
the matter and obviously knows nothing about the manner of
accident and the person who was driving the vehicle because he
simple collected the evidence and was not a witness of fact. PW-6
Pukhraj examined the vehicle about its mechanical condition and
has no nexus with the core question as to who was driving the
vehicle. PW-7 Dr. Rajendra prepared injury report of victim Lali,
and this is not a disputed question as to whether Lali received
injuries or not in the accident. PW-8 Durga Lal when examined in
the trial, in an unambiguous term stated that he knows nothing as
to who was driving the bus which allegedly hit the van. No other
evidence has been brought on record on behalf of the prosecution.
5. I have also gone through the document relied upon by the
prosecution, which are Exhibits P-1 to P-12, but there is no
material strong enough to indicate the guilt of the petitioner as
the accused who was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of
time.
6. In cases of vehicular accident where accused is tried for
accusation under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC, it is
imperative upon the prosecution to prove the fact beyond
reasonable doubt by producing clinching and direct evidence to
the effect that the accused was driving the vehicle and he drove
the vehicle either rashly or negligently, and as a necessary
consequence of which the accident occurred and either death or
injuries were caused to the victim.
[2025:RJ-JD:24330] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1300/2007]
7. Here in this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to
substantiate the charge, more particularly the above two aspects
which has been mentioned in the preceeding lines of this
paragraph. Neither the learned trial court nor the Court of Appeal
bothered to examined as to whether the petitioner was the same
person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time
resulting in death and injury. Simply because the petitioner was
booked by the police and then charge-sheeted, it cannot be
presumed that he was the same person who drove the vehicle
rashly or negligently.
8. In view of the above, the petitioner succeeds. The judgment
of conviction passed by the Court of first instance and the Court of
Appeal are not sustainable in the eye of law since the material
evidence is not brought on record to bring home the guilt of the
petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC.
9. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Both the
judgments dated 22.05.2007 and 21.11.2007 passed by learned
ACJM, Gulabpura and ADJ Gulabpura, District Bhilwara
respectively are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from
the charges. His bail bonds are canceled. The petitioner is not in
jail, therefore, he need not to surrender.
10. Record be send back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
13-chhavi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
