[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Karne Ram on 1 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:14336]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 598/1998
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Karne Ram S/o Ram Kumar, R/o Jalpura District Jhunjhunu
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Gill
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 05/03/2026
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED 05/03/2026
FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/04/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging the
judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.1998 passed by the learned
Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I, Piligbanga District
Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.15/1997, whereby the
respondent-accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the Dy.G.A. as well as counsel appeared on
behalf of the respondent-accused. The impugned judgment as
well as the entire record of the case have been minutely
scrutinized.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, arises out of an incident dated
26.12.1996, wherein it was alleged that the accused, while driving
a truck bearing registration No. RRF-4525 on the Pilibanga-
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:31:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14336] (2 of 6) [CRLA-598/1998]
Rawatsar road, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
and collided with a motorcycle driven by deceased Omprakash,
resulting in fatal injuries to him.
3.1. On the basis of a statement submitted by Kaluram, an FIR
under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered. After
investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused.
The learned trial Court framed charges accordingly, to which the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.2. In support of its case, the prosecution examined
eyewitnesses including Jagdishchandra, Kaluram, and Banwarilal,
along with the medical officer and investigating officer.
Documentary evidence such as site plan, seizure memos, and
postmortem report were also exhibited. The accused, in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and
asserted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
deceased himself. Vide judgment impugned whereby the
respondent has been acquitted, hence the instant appeal.
4. Upon a comprehensive and reappreciative evaluation of the
evidence on record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court
has undertaken a meticulous, analytical, and legally sound
scrutiny of the entire material, and has rightly returned a finding
of acquittal.
4.1. At the outset, the trial Court has correctly noted that the
case of the prosecution rests substantially on the testimonies of
the alleged eyewitnesses, namely PW-1 Jagdishchandra, PW-3
Kaluram, and PW-4 Banwarilal. However, these witnesses are not
wholly independent, as their proximity and acquaintance with the
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:31:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14336] (3 of 6) [CRLA-598/1998]
deceased stand admitted, thereby necessitating cautious and
circumspect evaluation of their evidence.
4.2. The trial Court has elaborately highlighted the material
contradictions inter se these witnesses. Their versions regarding
the sequence of events, their respective positions at the time of
the incident, and the manner in which the accident occurred, are
replete with inconsistencies. Notably, contradictions emerge
regarding who reached the spot first, the relative positioning of
vehicles, and the presence of a trolley ahead of the truck.
4.3. A pivotal aspect which has been rightly emphasized by the
trial Court is the surrounding physical circumstances of the
incident. The road in question was admittedly about 22 feet wide,
partially damaged, and the incident occurred during evening hours
when visibility was diminishing. The presence of a loaded trolley
ahead of the truck, coupled with a heavily loaded truck carrying
sugar bags, renders the allegation of high-speed rash driving by
the accused inherently doubtful.
4.4. The mechanical and situational evidence further weakens the
prosecution case. The damage to the truck was confined to the
driver's side, which does not unequivocally support the theory that
the truck had encroached upon the wrong side. On the contrary, it
lends credence to the possibility that the motorcycle, while
attempting to overtake or negotiate space, came into contact with
the truck.
4.5. The preparation of the site plan on the subsequent day, after
removal of the vehicles from the spot, has also been rightly
viewed with suspicion. The absence of contemporaneous
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:31:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14336] (4 of 6) [CRLA-598/1998]
documentation of the scene of occurrence significantly diminishes
the reliability of the prosecution's reconstruction of events.
4.6. The medical evidence, as discussed by the trial Court, also
does not conclusively establish that the death was the direct
consequence of impact with the truck alone. The possibility that
the deceased, upon losing control of the motorcycle, struck
against a fixed object such as a wall or पटरी, thereby sustaining
fatal injuries, remains plausible and cannot be ruled out.
4.7. The trial Court has, with commendable clarity, articulated
that the circumstances indicate a reasonable probability that the
deceased himself was driving at a considerable speed and, while
negotiating past a trolley on a narrow and uneven road, collided
with the truck or lost balance, leading to the fatal outcome.
4.8. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in order
to sustain a conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the
prosecution must establish rashness or negligence on the part of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mere occurrence of an
accident does not ipso facto establish criminal liability.
4.9. In the present case, the cumulative effect of contradictory
eyewitness accounts, doubtful site reconstruction, inconclusive
mechanical evidence, and the plausible alternative hypothesis of
contributory negligence of the deceased, creates a reasonable
doubt in the prosecution case. The learned trial Court has,
therefore, rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.
The view taken is not only plausible but also firmly anchored in
the settled principles governing criminal adjudication.
4.10. In an appeal assailing the judgment rendered by the court
below, it is a well-settled principle of jurisprudence that the
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:31:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14336] (5 of 6) [CRLA-598/1998]
superior court must exercise circumspection, restraint, and judicial
sobriety, and ought to remain slow and reluctant in interfering
with the findings recorded. Interference is not to be undertaken in
a routine or casual manner, but only in those exceptional
circumstances where it is demonstrably evident that the impugned
judgment suffers from patent illegality, is in derogation of settled
statutory provisions, or has been rendered in complete disregard
or non-consideration of the material evidence available on record.
4.11. It is equally trite that where the court of first instance or the
appellate court has exercised its discretion upon a proper and
judicious appreciation of evidence, the superior court ought not to
supplant its own view merely because an alternative interpretation
is conceivable. The discretionary jurisdiction, when exercised in
accordance with law and upon sound evaluation of facts,
commands deference and ought not to be disturbed unless the
conclusions drawn are manifestly perverse, arbitrary, or
unsustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the appellate forum is not
envisaged as a platform for re-appreciation of evidence in
substitution of the findings already arrived at, but rather as a
supervisory mechanism to ensure that justice has not been
vitiated by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
4.12. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no
perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the impugned
judgment. The learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in
its correct perspective and has rightly acquitted the respondent-
accused.
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:31:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14336] (6 of 6) [CRLA-598/1998]
5. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands
dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.1998 passed by
the learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I, Piligbanga District
Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.15/1997, whereby the
respondent-accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.is hereby
affirmed.
6. Record be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
107-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:31:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
