IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a driver to exercise reasonable care and precaution on public roads, and the prosecution's burden to prove rash and negligent driving in cases of road accidents.

ORDER :

1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.03.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.95/2002, whereby, learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jaipur, District Jaipur in Criminal Case No.356/2001, whereby, accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. The facts of the case in the nut-shell are as under:-

3. As per the prosecution case, on 20.08.1997, PW3 Mohd. Mubin Khan recorded parcha bayan of PW1 Tasleem at SMS Hospital, Jaipur to the effect that the injured and her 6-7 relatives had hired Jeep No.RJX-1194 for going to Kuchaman from Phagi in Rs.1100/-. In parcha bayan, it is also stated that apart from her Gulam Mohd., Nizamuddin, Jaitun, Majidan, Ramko, Barkat, Mumtaj, Hina and driver of the Jeep were in the Jeep. On 19.08.1997, at about 06:00 PM. After returning from Kuchaman, at about 12:00 AM, near to Bhankrota Puliya at Ajmer Road, the jeep collided with truck No.KA-01-6524, which was parked at its side. It is also stated in the parcha bayan that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the Jeep driver. Due to the accident, Nizamuddin sustained injuries and Smt. Jaitun and Gulam Mohammad expired.

4. On the above parcha bayan, case under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC was registered and after investigation, Police charge-sheeted the accused-petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and in defence petitioner also examined 5 witnesses.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that learned Appellate Court, without properly appreciating and critically examining the evidence available on record, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court.

6. The bare perusal of the impugned judgments of learned Courts below shows that evidence put forth by the prosecution were not property analyzed. It is also argued that there is no specific finding regarding rash and negligent driving of the accused-petitioner. As per Section 304A of the IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove rashlessness and negligence of the driver. Both the learned Courts below failed to consider the well-established legal position, thus, committed material irregularity and jurisdictional error while passing the impugned judgments. The accident occurred at the mid-night and the truck was parked at the left side of the road where the jeep was being driven. The record does not show that there was any indication that truck was parked properly. There is also no evidence that parking lights of the truck were on, therefore, in such circumstances on a National Highway, if Jeep is hit to the Truck, then it cannot be said that petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Merely, fast speed cannot be the ground to infer that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. The testimony of PW-1 Tasleem, PW-5 Nizammuddin, PW-6 Smt. Barkat & PW-9 Ramzo was not properly appreciated. The learned Appellate Court as well as the trial Court failed to consider the aspect that the witnesses have improved their versions. The learned trial court and Appellate Court has not taken the contradiction and omission of material points. Therefore, impugned judgments dated 15.03.2005 and 24.10.2022 may kindly be quashed.