Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Naresh vs State (2025:Rj-Jp:30114-Db) on 5 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:30060-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 332/2002
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Naresh S/o Babulal, R/o New Colony, Bundi.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 739/2001
Naresh S/o Babulal, R/o New Colony, Bundi
—-Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan —-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP (respondent in
739/2001)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harendra Sinsinwar with
Mr. Dhruv Atri and
Mr. Hemang Singh (appellant in
739/2001)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment
05/08/2025
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:-
In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 332/2002:-
1. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the judgment
dated 19.09.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
(Fast Track) No.1, Bundi in Sessions Case No.27/2001 acquitting
the accused-respondent under Section 302 IPC.
2. The case as set up by the prosecution is that on complaint of
Sudharshan Bhatia (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) FIR
No. 47/95 dated 12.03.1995 under Section 304-A IPC was
registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bundi. The FIR was against an
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:30:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30060-DB] (2 of 11) [CRLA-332/2002]unknown vehicle having caused accident by rash and negligent
driving of jeep, injuring Suneel (hereinafter referred to as
“deceased”) who when taken to the hospital was declared ‘brought
dead’. On 13.03.1995, an application was given by the
complainant mentioning that on 12.03.1995 at around 8 PM
deceased while having tea at Vishwakarma Hotel with Bhanwarlal
Nai, Dalveer, Adarsh Saxena, Harish Sharma and Ram Singh had
heated exchange of words with Naresh @Pintu (accused). The
accused threatened the deceased to bear the consequences and
that he will not see the dawn. Further that on 03.03.1995, there
was altercation between the deceased and accused during Nikasi
(ceremony regarding marriage procession) of Bithal and the
deceased was told by Harish Sharma and Ram Singh that the
accused had threatened to kill him. It was stated that the accident
of the deceased was with jeep bearing registration
No.RJ-028-C-0023 driven by accused and Jaggu, Subhash @Bassi,
Rameshwar @Beechla were the witnesses to the accident, the
accused has killed the deceased due to enmity. The charge-sheet
was filed under Section 302 IPC and the charges were accordingly
framed. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and exhibited
thirteen documents. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it
was stated to be case of false implication. In defence, one witness
was examined and ten documents were exhibited.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that PW-4 Ram Singh
proved the incidents of 03.03.1995 and 12.03.1995. PW-5 Adarsh
Saxena not only proved two incidents of 03.03.1995 and
12.03.1995 but was also an eye-witness to the accident. It is
further argued that PW-10 Rameshwar Singh, PW-11 Ranjeet
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:30:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30060-DB] (3 of 11) [CRLA-332/2002]Singh @Jaggu had witnessed the accident and testified that
accused had killed the deceased. The evidence was not properly
considered and trial Court erred in acquitting the accused under
Section 302 IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the accused submits that the view taken
by the trial Court is plausible one. The prosecution failed to prove
that the jeep at the time of incident was being driven by the
accused. It is argued that the eye-witnesses were planted
witnesses.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
with their able assistance.
6. The complaint filed by Sudharshan Bhatia on 12.03.1995 was
against an unknown person. In an application given on
13.03.1995, five persons- Bhanwarlal Nai, Dalveer Singh, Adarsh
Saxena, Harish Sharma and Ram Singh were named to have
witnessed the incidents of 3rd and 12th March, 1995. Further
Jagveer @Jaggu, Subhash Chand @Basi and Rameshwar Singh
@Bichla were claimed to be eye-witnesses to the accident.
7. As per the prosecution, there was enmity between the
accused and the deceased due to incidents that occurred on
03.03.1995 and 12.03.1995 and the accused had hit the deceased
with a jeep with an intention to kill. Out of five witnesses to the
incident of 12.03.1995, PW-1 Bhanwar Lal and PW-3 Harish
Sharma were declared hostile.
7.1. PW-2 Dalveer Singh testified that incidents took place
between the deceased on 03.03.1995 and 12.03.1995 and the
accused. Further that complainant was told about these incidents
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:30:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30060-DB] (4 of 11) [CRLA-332/2002]after the cremation of the deceased. To similar effect was the
statement of PW-4 Ram Singh.
8. These witnesses were not found reliable by the trial Court
being from the same locality and PW-4 Ram Singh was the
childhood friend of the deceased. It would be important to note
that these two witnesses had not seen the accident but were
produced to prove enmity between the accused and deceased.
9. PW-5 Adarsh Saxena named by the complainant as a witness
to the incidents of 03.03.1995 and 12.03.1995 but in his
deposition he stated to have witnessed the accident. The reliability
of this witness was rightly found to be doubtful by the trial Court.
As per statement of PW-5 Adarsh Saxena, he along with three-
four persons sitting at Vishwakarma Hotel with deceased and
accused went to the house of the deceased after the accident, but
it is important to note that they were not named in the complaint
filed on 12.03.1995. It was taken note that PW-5 Adarsh Saxena
was friend of the deceased, an Advocate by profession, involved in
more than twenty five criminal cases, yet had not reported the
accident to the police.
10. Another angle is that PW-5 Adarsh Saxena claimed to be an
eye-witness to the accident and met the complainant after
accident, but was not named in an application given by
complainant on 13.03.1995. The testimony of PW-5 Adarsh
Saxena was at variance with the deposition of PW-8 Sudarshan
Bhatia (complainant). As per the PW-8 Sudarshan Bhatia, he was
first to reach at spot of accident whereas, PW-5 Adarsh Saxena
never mentioned that Sudarshan Bhatia was there at the spot of
accident.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:30:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30060-DB] (5 of 11) [CRLA-332/2002]
11. The reliance of the prosecution on testimony of PW-5 Adarsh
Saxena to prove that the accused was driving the jeep at the time
of incident was dented by variations in the statements of PW-5
Adarsh Saxena, PW-11 Ranjeet Singh @ Jaggu and PW-12
Subhash Chand Sharma. PW-5 Adarsh Saxena stated that he
along with others tried to stop the jeep but the accused fled away
threatening that they have seen the result of having enmity with
the accused. On the other hand PW-11 Ranjeet Singh @Jaggu an
eye-witness to the incident said that the accused fled away after
the incident and he could not hear what he was saying. Further
that by the time they reached the spot the jeep had travelled
fifteen to twenty feet and was not remembering the registration
number of the jeep. PW-12 Subhash Chand Sharma stated that by
the time he reached the spot where the deceased was hit, the
jeep had reached Kotwali which was two hundred to three hundred
feet away from the spot.
12. It cannot be lost sight of that the accident took place at
around 9:00 PM on 12.03.1995 and as per statement of PW-11
Ranjeet Singh @Jaggu and PW-12 Subhash Chand Sharma by
time they reached the spot where the deceased was hit, the jeep
had gone ahead from the spot. The factum that these witnesses
had seen the accused driving the jeep is clouded by doubt.
13. PW-8 Sudarshan Bhatia (complainant) was not an eye
witness to the accident. It was stated that he was following the
deceased with a time difference of two to five minutes. The
complainant had seen rashly and negligently driven jeep near the
cinema. The complainant had neither seen the driver nor noted
the registration number of the vehicle. As per the statement, the
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:30:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30060-DB] (6 of 11) [CRLA-332/2002]
complainant was first one to reach the spot of the incident but this
statement is at variance with the statement of all other witnesses.
Complainant was also not witness to the incidents that occurred
on 03.03.1995 and 12.03.1995 and had acted upon hearsay.
14. PW-10 Rameshwar Singh was named as an eye witness in an
application given on 13.03.1995, albeit supported the case of the
prosecution but stated that the statement was recorded by the
Police after a gap of eight days. PW-10 demolished the claim of
the complainant of having reached the spot at first instance and
stated that he had not met Sudarshan Bhatia at the spot of the
accident. PW-10 Rameshwar Singh faltered in cross-examination,
stated that he neither met complainant nor told about the accident
or earlier incidents to the complainant whereas, in an application
dated 13.03.1995, the complainant claimed that PW-10
Rameshwar Singh had told him about the incidents and accident.
15. PW-11 Ranjeet Singh @Jaggu was not found reliable witness
belonging to the same locality. He was not remembering the
registration number of the vehicle or the colour of the jeep. PW-11
Ranjeet Singh @Jaggu inspite of having witnessed the accident
and living in the same locality had neither informed the
complainant about the accident nor went to the house of the
deceased.
16. PW-12 Subhash Chand Sharma was also from the locality
where the deceased was residing. The witness was not
remembering the RC number of the jeep and stated to have
inform the mother of the deceased about the accident but was not
named in complaint given on 12.03.1995.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:30:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30060-DB] (7 of 11) [CRLA-332/2002]
17. Two Investigating Officers (I.O.) were examined by the
prosecution to prove the involvement of the jeep in the accident.
Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity
‘the Act’) was served upon the owner of the jeep exhibited as P-12
as also the reply filed that on the fateful day the jeep was being
driven by accused. This evidence does not enhance the case of the
prosecution for the reason that even if involvement of the jeep is
proved yet for conviction under IPC, it has to be proved that the
jeep was driven by the accused at the time of the accident.
18. It would not be out of place to mention that owner of the
jeep DW-1 Ramesh Jangid when stepped into the witness box
retracted from reply filed and denied the involvement of the jeep
in the accident.
19. The trial Court took into account that all the witnesses
claiming to be eye witnesses were known to the deceased and his
brother, surprisingly enough none tried to pick him or take him to
the hospital after the accident. No one came forward to report the
matter to the Police and as per their statements, they came to
know about the death of the deceased on the next day.
20. It was also noted that PW-5 Adarsh Saxena, PW-10
Rameshwar Singh and PW-11 Ranjeet Singh @ Jaggu were
Advocates by profession yet chose not to report the accident to
the Police.
21. The scope of interference in the appeal against the judgment
of acquittal is enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in [(2024) 8 SCC 149] held:-
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:30:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30060-DB] (8 of 11) [CRLA-332/2002]
“40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of
Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court
summarised the principles governing the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal
under Section 378 Cr.PC as follows:
“8. xxx xxx xxx
8.1. The acquittal of the accused
further strengthens the presumption
of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while
hearing an appeal against acquittal,
is entitled to re-appreciate the oral
and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while
deciding an appeal against acquittal,
after re-appreciating the evidence,
is required to consider whether the
view taken by the trial court is a
possible view which could have been
taken on the basis of the evidence
on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible
view, the appellate court cannot
overturn the order of acquittal on
the ground that another view was
also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can
interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a finding that the
only conclusion which can be
recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the
guilt of the accused was proved
beyond a reasonable doubt and no
other conclusion was possible.”
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that
the scope of interference by an appellate
court for reversing the judgment of acquittal
recorded by the trial court in favour of the
accused has to be exercised within the four
corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers
from patent perversity;
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:30:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30060-DB] (9 of 11) [CRLA-332/2002]
41.2. That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and
41.3. That no two reasonable views are
possible and only the view consistent with
the guilt of the accused is possible from the
evidence available on record.”
22. The view taken by the trial Court after considering the facts
and appreciating the evidence is plausible one, suffers from no
legal or factual error much less perversity calling for interference
by this Court.
23. The appeal is dismissed.
In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 739/2001:-
1. This appeal is preferred by the accused – Naresh S/o Babulal
against the judgment dated 19.09.2001 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bundi in Sessions case
No.27/2001, convicting the accused-appellant under Section
304-A IPC and sentenced two years rigorous imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.
2. The counsel for the accused contends that the prosecution
failed to prove the involvement of the accused in the accident. In
alternate, it is argued that the accused has undergone more than
four months incarceration and sentence be reduced to undergone.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the accident was
witnessed by PW-5 Adarsh Saxena, PW-10 Rameshwar Singh,
PW-11 Ranjeet Singh @ Jaggu and PW-12 Subhash Chand Sharma
and the accused was rightly convicted.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:30:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30060-DB] (10 of 11) [CRLA-332/2002]
4. The trial Court while acquitting accused under Section 302
extended benefit of doubt to the accused that even if jeep was
involved in accident but the prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the jeep at the
time of the accident.
5. It is further noted that the conviction was done mainly
relying upon fact that the involvement of the jeep in accident was
proved by the prosecution by producing mechanical report (Ex.11)
and the reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Act (Ex.12)
whereas, it has not been considered that involvement of the
vehicle in itself shall not be sufficient for conviction of the
accused. Moreso that the reply to notice u/s 133 was retracted by
DW-1 Ramesh Jangid while deposing before the trial Court. The
involvement of the vehicle and the accused in the accident was
itself denied by the owner of the vehicle.
6. The judgment of acquittal under Section 302 IPC has been
upheld by us, in such circumstances the benefit of the doubt is to
be extended to the accused for conviction u/s 304-A IPC.
7. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set
aside. The appeal is allowed.
8. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 BNSS,
appellant Naresh S/o Babulal is directed to forthwith furnish a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and surety bond of the
like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which
shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:30:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30060-DB] (11 of 11) [CRLA-332/2002]
that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this
judgment or on grant of leave, appellant Naresh on receipt of
notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Chandan/Danish/27-28
Reportable: Yes
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:30:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)