[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramesh Kumar Sidhana vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 February, 2026

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:6285-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 406/2025

Ramesh Kumar Sidhana S/o Jagdish Sidhana, Aged About 46
Years,     Resident      Of       Ward      No.25         Srivijaynagar    District
Sriganganagar.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.
2.       Ramlal S/o Bhikharam, Resident of Mallad Khera, Police
         Station Sangariya, District Hanumangarh.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :   Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas.
For Respondent(s)             :   Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Judgment

04/02/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-

complainant- Ramesh Kumar Sidhana against the judgment dated

24.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions

Judge No.1, Hanumangarh (For short 'learned trial Court') in

Session Case No.68/2021 (20/2022) (CIS 71/2021).

3. By passing the said judgment, the learned trial Court

convicted the co-accused Ramesh Kumar S/o Shankarlal for the

offences under Section 302 IPC, but extended the benefit of doubt

and acquitted the accused respondent No.2- Ramlal from the

offence under Section 302 IPC.

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:56:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6285-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLAD-406/2025]

4. Briefly, the facts in narrow compass are that on 15.02.2021,

the appellant- Ramesh Kumar Sidhana submitted a written report

to the Hanumangarh Town Police Station stating therein that he is

a resident of Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar. His brother-

in-law and sister reside with their families in Ward No.33 (formerly

Ward No. 24) of Sangaria. His brother-in-law, Vinod Kumar

Baghla, is an accountant at SKM Public School in Sangaria and his

sister, Renu Baghla, is a teacher at Gramothan Vidyapeeth Girls

School. His nieces are Diya Arora and Ishika Arora.

5. On 9.02.2021, the appellant's brother-in-law along with his

family and friend- Ramesh Kumar Swami went to Sikar to drop his

elder niece Diya at CLC, Sikar for her studies. They left Diya there

and departed at around 5:30 p.m. At that time, the appellant

made a call to his sister. Mrs. Sunita Bhati, wife of his former

acquaintance teacher Mr. Sandeep Bhati from Sikar, also

accompany them for her home at Hanumangarh.

6. Around 7-8 pm, the appellant's younger brother Gulshan

Sidana made a call to his brother-in-law Vinod Baghla and he said

that he would reach Sangaria by 10:30 pm. After this, his brother-

in-law's mother Mrs. Kalavati Devi called her neighbor Mr. Bharat

Bhushan Chhabra in Sangaria. Mr. Chhabra and his son Ravi

Chhabra were told that it was 8:15 pm and Vinod and others had

not yet arrived, so they should call them. Ravi Chhabra then called

appellant's brother-in-law twice at 8:21 pm and 8:22 pm, but his

brother-in-law did not pick up the phone. Thereafter, Bharat

Bhushan Chhabra called his brother-in-law at 8:29 pm, but he did

not pick up the phone either. After this, at 9:41 pm, Sunita Bhati

spoke to her husband Sandeep Bhati and told him that they were

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:56:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6285-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLAD-406/2025]

about to reach Rawatsar and would return home shortly and they

would have dinner together.

7. At 10:01 a.m., Sunita Bhati called Sandeep Bhati again,

saying, "Our car had fallen over. Come quickly." Sandeep asked

where it had fallen and she gave replica, "It's just passed the

Ratvasar crossing and there is a light ahead and also a man is

there." She further replied, "I told Ramesh, the driver, to stop the

car behind," but he brought it forward. She then told someone

from her sister's family sitting with her not to open the windows, it

could rain. She then said, "Oh, I'm gone," and the phone

disconnected. Sandeep then called Sunita's mobile phone several

times, but the call didn't connect. Sandeep said that when he last

spoke to Sunita, he heard no screams or cries for help. The car

was being driven by his brother-in-law's friend, Ramesh Kumar

Swami, a resident of Ward No. 26, Old Ward No. 20, SL School,

Sangaria.

8. When Sandeep Bhati reached the place of incident and spoke

with the driver Ramesh Kumar, he told them that he had parked

his car on the side of the road and gone to urinate. Suddenly, the

car rolled on its own and fell into the Indira Gandhi Canal. He tried

to stop several vehicles, but no one stopped.

9. The appellant's brother in law Vinod Baghla, his sister Renu

Baghla, his niece Ishita, and Mrs. Sunita Bhati died in the incident.

When the family members spoke with Ramesh Kumar Swami

about the incident, he sometimes said he stopped the car to

urinate and sometimes said Vinod ji himself stopped the car to

drive. The journey from Sikar to Sangaria is approximately 4.5

hours and it took so much time from Sikar to Rawatsar. No one

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:56:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6285-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLAD-406/2025]

except the driver got down to urinate and he repeatedly changed

his words. No effort was made to save anyone except Sunita Bhati

and Mr. Vinod Kumar did not pick up the phone before the

incident. In the incident, Vinod Kumar, Renu Baghla, Diya, Sunita

Bhati, all four have died.

10. On the basis of the aforesaid application, FIR No. 88/2021

was registered at Hanumangarh Town Police Station and after

investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused

Ramesh Kumar and Ramlal under sections 302, 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

11. The trial was commenced and during the course of the trial,

material witnesses were examined. The prosecution examined 24

witnesses and proved its story beyond all reasonable doubts and

exhibited relevant documents. The statements under Section 313

Cr.P.C. were taken and thereafter, final arguments were heard.

12. The learned Court below convicted the co-accused Ramesh

Kumar S/o Shankar Lal for offence under Section 302 IPC but

extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused

respondent No.2- Ramlal from the offence under Section 302 IPC

vide its order and judgment dated 24.09.2025. Hence, the present

appeal has been filed.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that

the learned trial Court has committed an error while passing the

order/judgment of acquittal against the respondent No.2- Ramlal.

He further submits that it would be abundantly clear as per the

evidence, which is brought on record that the respondent- Ramlal

has participated in commission of the offence in the present case.

He also submits that it has come on record that after the car in

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:56:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6285-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLAD-406/2025]

question driven by Ramesh Kumar was parked on the side road of

Rajasthan Canal, it was pushed by the respondent No.2- Ramlal

resulting into the car rushing into the Canal.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there

is ample evidence on record which shows that the car was

stationed on the side road of the Rajasthan Canal and was pushed

by the respondent-Ramlal resulting into the car rushed into the

Rajasthan Canal, thereby death of the occupants of the car. He,

therefore, prays that the order/judgment of acquittal passed by

the learned trial Court against the respondent- Ramlal is not just,

proper and correct and the learned trial Court should have

convicted the respondent-Ramlal for the offence alleged in this

case. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal may be allowed

and the respondent- Ramlal may be convicted for the offence

under Section 304/34 of the IPC.

15. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and

gone through the relevant record of the case.

16. The undisputed facts in the present case emerge that when

the car was recovered from the Canal, it was in third gear and the

ignition of the car was on. Once the vehicle was in third gear and

ignition being on, there is no possibility of the car would have

been stopped at the side road of the Canal thereby allowing any

person to push that vehicle into the Canal. The site plan (Exhibit-

9) also clearly shows that if the car is parked on the side road of

the Canal, it cannot go into the Canal by pushing by somebody.

17. Learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence

on record and has rightly come to the conclusion as mentioned in

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:56:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6285-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLAD-406/2025]

para Nos.63 and 91 of the judgment. For brevity para Nos.63 and

91 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

"63- ,slh fLFkfr esa tc fd okgu dh tCrh ds le; okgu dk bXuh'ku vkWu gksdj okgu dk rhljk fx;j yxk gksuk lkfcr gks jgk gS rks ;g LohÑr fLFkfr gS fd okgu dks pkyw gkyr esa ugj esa fxjk;k x;k gS D;ksafd bXuh'ku vkWu gksdj rhljk fx;j yxk gksdj xkM+h dks fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa jksddj ,d txg [kM+k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA okgu dks rHkh ,d LFkku ij jksdk tk ldrk gS tc mldk bXuh'ku vkWQ dj fn;k tkos vFkok ;fn bXuh'ku vkWu gS rks mldk fx;j U;wVªy dj fn;k tkosA okgu dks ,d lkFk rhljs fx;j esa ykdj bXuh'ku vkWu dj ,d txg ij [kM+k djuk laHko ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa Res- ipsa-loquitur ds fl)kar ds vuqlkj ifjfLFkfr;ka Loeso ;g lkfcr dj jgh gS fd vfHk;qDr jes'k Lokeh }kjk dkj dk bXuh'ku vkWu djus ds i'pkr~ xkM+h dks rhljs fx;j esa Mkydj vk'k;iwoZd e`rdx.k dks ugj esa Mkydj mudh gR;k dkfjr dh vFkok mlds }kjk dkj dks [kM+k djus ds i'pkr~ Lo;a is'kkc djus ds vkus ds i'pkr~ dkj dks mDrkuqlkj ugj esa Mkydj e`rdx.k dh gR;k dkfjr dh x;hA

93- vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa mijksDr foospu ls vfHk;qDr jes'k Lokeh dh e`rd fouksn ds lkFk ,d gh Ldwy esa dke djus ls tkudkjh gksus ij ?kVuk ls dqN le; iwoZ iSlksa ds ysu&nsu dks ysdj e`rd fouksn ds ?kj vkuk tkuk de djus rn~ksijkar ?kVuk ls dqN le; iwoZ vkuk tkuk iqu% 'kq: dj tehu ds fookn esa jaft'ko'k gR;k,a djus] vfHk;qDr jes'k Lokeh }kjk e`rd fouksn dks foØ; dh x;h tehu dk dCtk ugha nsus dh jaft'k lkfcr gksus vfHk;qDr jes'k Lokeh ds oDr ?kVuk okgu dkj pykus ds ckjs esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ la'k; ugha gksus] vfHk;qDr jes'k }kjk ?kVuk ds rqjar i'pkr~ ekSdk ij igaqps fHkUu&2 O;fDr;ksa dks fHkUu&2 izdkj ds dFku ?kVuk ds laca/k esa djus tks lkekU; izKk okys O;fDr ds foijhr djus lkfcr gksus] vfHk;qDr }kjk e`rdksa dks ugj esa fxjkdj mudh gR;k djuk lkfcr gksus vkSj vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; dh dM+hc} J`[a kyk izLrqr gksus tks fdlh Hkh Lrj ij [kafMr ugha gksus ls vfHk;kstu vfHk;qDr jes'k Lokeh ds fo:) /kkjk 302 Hkk-n-la- dk vkjksi lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k lQy jgk gSA og ;g lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k lQy jgk gS fd vfHk;qDr us fnukad 09-02- 2021 dks 10-01 ih,e ls 10-15 ih,e ds e/; vFkok mlds yxHkx bafnjk xka/kh ugj utnhd y[kwokyh esa fouksn dqekj ck?kyk] js.kq ck?kyk] bf'kdk vjksM+k o lquhrk HkkVh dks Mqckdj mudh gR;k dkfjr djus esa dkj uacj ,p vkj&26 ch,u&6814 ftlesa mijksDr pkjksa O;fDr lokj Fks] dks ugj esa Mky dj fouksn dqekj ck?kyk] js.kq ck?kyk] bf'kdk vjksM+k o lquhrk HkkVh dh gR;k dkfjr dj nh tcfd vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDr jkeyky ds fo:) /kkjk 302 Hkk-n-la- dk vkjksi lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k foQy jgk gSA ftl dkj.k vfHk;qDr jes'k /kkjk 302 Hkk- n-la- ds rgr nks"kfl) ?kksf"kr fd, tkus vkSj vfHk;qDr jkeyky 302 Hkk-n-la- ds vkjksi ls nks"keqDr ?kksf"kr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA"

18. The examination and analysis of the testimony and evidence

brought on record has been done carefully by the learned trial

Court and it has rightly come to the conclusion that once the

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:56:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6285-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLAD-406/2025]

vehicle was in third gear and ignition was on, then it is not

possible to stop the car on the side road of the canal and,

therefore, there is no question of somebody pushing the vehicle

into the canal. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of

acquittal passed by the learned trial Court against the respondent-

Ramlal does not suffers from any infirmity and illegality.

19. In view of the discussion made above, there is no merit in