Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bhanwaru Khan vs State on 17 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26821]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 607/2006
Bhanwaru Khan S/o Rahim Khan, R/o Bitur District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable
Order Reserved On : 08/05/2025
Order Pronounced On : 17/06/2025
1. By way of filing this instant petition under Sections 397 and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has
assailed the judgment dated 07.07.2006 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Balotra (Shri T.H. Samma, RHJS) in
Criminal Appeal No. 8/2004, whereby the learned appellate
court, while partly allowing the petitioner’s appeal, modified
and reduced the substantive sentences awarded to him by
the trial court and sentenced him to undergo one month’s
simple imprisonment under Section 279 IPC, three months’
simple imprisonment under Section 337 IPC, nine months’
simple imprisonment under Section 338 IPC, and one year’s
simple imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC, along with a
fine of ₹500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo one month’s simple imprisonment, with all
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:05:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26821] (2 of 9) [CRLR-607/2006]
sentences directed to run concurrently. The petitioner has
also challenged the earlier judgment dated 26.08.2004
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Criminal
Case No. 123/1997, whereby he was convicted and
sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment under
Section 279 IPC, six months’ rigorous imprisonment under
Section 337 IPC, one year’s rigorous imprisonment under
Section 338 IPC, and two years’ rigorous imprisonment
under Section 304-A IPC, along with a fine of ₹1,000/-, and
in default thereof, to further undergo two months’ simple
imprisonment, with all sentences directed to run
concurrently. The petitioner seeks setting aside of both the
judgments on the grounds urged in the present revision.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on
05.12.1996 by one Ashok Kumar at Police Station Kalyanpur,
alleging that on the same day, while he and his family
members were travelling in a Rajasthan Roadways bus (No.
RJ-04 P-0098) towards Pali, and the bus was being driven by
Rana Ram, a truck (No. RJ-01 G-0457), driven rashly and
negligently by one Bhanwru Khan, collided with the bus near
Balotra. The truck entered from the driver’s side, causing
injuries to several passengers including the driver and the
conductor (khalasi). One passenger, Gudi No. Satya Narayan,
died on the spot. Upon registration of the FIR, the police
investigated the matter and filed a chargesheet against the
present petitioner. The case was tried before the Judicial
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:05:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26821] (3 of 9) [CRLR-607/2006]
Magistrate, Balotra. During the trial, the prosecution
examined 20 witnesses and exhibited several documents.
The petitioner’s statement was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., and one defence witness (DW-1 Shokin) was also
examined. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned
Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for offences
under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC and sentenced
him accordingly vide judgment dated 26.08.2004. Aggrieved
by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, who, vide
judgment dated 07.07.2006, partly allowed the appeal and
reduced the sentence on each count. Challenging the
legality, propriety, and correctness of both the judgments,
the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the
present revision petition.
3. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
4. Before proceeding to analyse the merits of the impugned
conviction and sentence, this Court deems it appropriate to
advert to a significant finding recorded by the learned
Sessions Judge in the appellate judgment dated 07.07.2006.
At paragraph 8 (pages 6-7), the learned Judge has
categorically observed that:
“दोनों ही वाहन चालकों ने अपने अपने वाहनों की सड़क के बीच में प्रताया , यदि एक भी
वाहन चालक अपने वाहन को साईड में ले लेता तो इस दु र्घटना से बचा जा सकता था।
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:05:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26821] (4 of 9) [CRLR-607/2006]वास्तव में यह दु र्घटना बस चालक एवं ट्र क चालक अभियुक्त की संयुक्त लापरवाही के
कारण घटित हुई थी। इस दु र्घटना के घटित होने में केवल मात्र अभियुक्त की ही लापरवाही
नहीं थी, बल्कि बस चालक भी दु र्घटना के घटित होने के लिए बराबर का जिम्मेदार है ,
लेकिन दु र्भा ग्यवश बस चालक को अभियोजित नहीं किया गया है , केवल मात्र ट्र क चालक
को ही अभियोजित किया गया है ।”
5. The above finding clearly reflects that the occurrence was a
consequence of joint or contributory negligence of both the
drivers involved. The learned Sessions Judge has himself
noted that if either of the drivers had taken reasonable care,
the accident could have been averted. Notably, the
Roadways bus driver was found to be equally culpable, yet,
for reasons unexplained on record, only the present
petitioner was arraigned and prosecuted. This unilateral
prosecution raises serious doubts regarding the fairness of
the investigative process and casts a shadow on the
legitimacy of the petitioner’s conviction.
6. In light of the above, and for the purpose of dispelling any
ambiguity while undertaking a further re-appreciation of
evidence, this Court has independently scrutinised the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses. A cumulative
reading of the testimonies reveals glaring inconsistencies
and a conspicuous absence of cogent evidence to
conclusively establish that the petitioner was the person
driving the truck at the relevant time:
PW-1 candidly admitted that she could not identify the driver
of the truck.
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:05:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26821] (5 of 9) [CRLR-607/2006]PW-2 explicitly stated that he did not witness the occurrence.
PW-3 gave no testimony regarding the identity of the truck
driver.
PW-4 merely stated that the bus was being driven by Rana
Ram but did not establish who was driving the offending
truck.
PW-5 is not a witness to the factum probandum and lends no
assistance to the prosecution’s core case.
PW-6 also did not mention anything concerning the identity
of the truck driver.
PW-7 is not a witness to the principal fact in issue and hence
his testimony holds no probative value.
PW-8 affirmed that he had no knowledge about who was
driving the truck.
PW-10, while claiming to have seen the truck, initially did not
name the driver, and only in court identified the petitioner,
who was singularly standing in the dock. No prior
identification was conducted in his presence, and the manner
in which the identification was made — for the first time
during trial — severely undermines its evidentiary weight.
Notably, he also stated that he lost consciousness due to the
impact of the collision, thereby rendering his claim of
recognising the driver inherently doubtful and legally
unreliable.
PW-11 did not support the prosecution version at all.
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:05:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26821] (6 of 9) [CRLR-607/2006]PW-12 unequivocally attributed the cause of the accident to
the negligence of the bus driver.
PW-13 denied knowledge regarding the petitioner’s
involvement.
PW-14, while claiming that the truck was being driven by
Bhanwru Khan and that it hit the bus from behind, failed to
demonstrate how he came to know about the identity of the
driver, especially in light of his own injury and the impact
happening from behind.
PW-16, in her examination-in-chief, admitted that she was
told after the accident by someone that the petitioner was
the driver. Her statement lacks personal knowledge and is
therefore inadmissible as hearsay.
PW-17 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.
PW-18 and PW-20 are not relevant to the principal issue of
identity or culpability.
PW-19, being the Investigating Officer, is limited to the
formal aspects of investigation and is not a witness to the
occurrence itself.
7. The combined effect of the above depositions is that there
exists no direct, reliable, and legally admissible evidence
affirmatively identifying the petitioner as the person driving
the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. The
prosecution’s case is replete with contradictions,
assumptions, and speculative assertions unsupported by a
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:05:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26821] (7 of 9) [CRLR-607/2006]
coherent chain of evidence. In criminal jurisprudence,
conviction cannot rest on conjecture or presumption,
particularly in the absence of a Test Identification Parade or
prior consistent statement establishing the accused’s
identity.
8. Moreover, the presence of doubt regarding the exclusive
culpability of the petitioner is further compounded by the
appellate court’s own finding of joint negligence. When the
responsibility for the accident is evenly apportioned between
the petitioner and the bus driver, the selective prosecution of
only one party — and the exoneration of the other without
lawful justification — raises serious questions of due process
and prosecutorial fairness.
9. It is trite law that when two possible inferences emerge from
the evidence — one pointing to the guilt of the accused and
the other to his innocence — the benefit of doubt must
invariably go to the accused. The present case, as it stands,
not only presents such conflicting inferences, but also suffers
from material infirmities and legal deficiencies in proof,
particularly with respect to the essential ingredient of
identity and exclusive criminal negligence.
10. The law is well settled that in order to fasten criminal
liability under Section 304-A IPC, it must be shown that the
death was the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the
accused, and that the said act was the proximate and
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:05:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26821] (8 of 9) [CRLR-607/2006]
efficient cause of death, uninfluenced by any intervening or
contributory negligence. This position was lucidly expounded
by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap,
4 Bom. L.R. 679, wherein it was held:
“To impose criminal liability under Section 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 causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been
the causa sine qua non.”
11. In the present case, the very foundation of prosecution
is clouded by the trial court’s and appellate court’s
concurrent findings that the bus driver was equally
responsible, and the overwhelming lack of direct, credible,
and unambiguous evidence identifying the petitioner as the
actual driver of the offending truck. Thus, the legal
ingredients for invoking criminal liability under Section 304-A
IPC — particularly the requirement of exclusive rash and
negligent act being the proximate cause — remain
unfulfilled.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion and guided by the
legal principles enunciated in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap
(supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:05:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26821] (9 of 9) [CRLR-607/2006]
petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The findings
recorded by the learned trial court and the appellate court
suffer from legal infirmities, factual inconsistencies, and
improper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the
conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338,
and 304-A IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
13. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The
judgments dated 26.08.2004 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Balotra, and dated 07.07.2006 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, are hereby set aside. The
petitioner stands acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds, if
any, shall stand discharged.
14. The record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
6-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:05:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)