The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere conjecture or inconsistent evidence is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. By way of filing this criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 234/2001, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced under Section 279 IPC with six months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' additional imprisonment as also under Section 304A IPC with two years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's additional imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The petitioner has also challenged judgment and order dated 19.07.2007 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2005, whereby the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and judgment and order passed by the trial court has been affirmed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have committed serious jurisdictional error as well as material irregularity and illegality in not appreciating the evidence in right perspective and the judgments to convict the petitioner have been passed on the basis of sheer misreading of the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is clear by perusal of FIR lodged by the father of the deceased that on 21.09.2001, at around 4.30-5.00 P.M., when his son Kamal, aged 13 years, was going to his shop from his home, one tempo bearing no. RJ-02 P 1259, which used to ply at Alwar Bhajera route and was being driven by Kala @ Samee Kha came with high speed and crushed his son and on account of injuries caused due to said accident, his son expired. It was also mentioned in the FIR that the tempo driver immediately ran away by leaving the tempo at the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thus, it is clear that name of the petitioner was not mentioned in FIR as driver of the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident. However, later on, due to manipulation of the prosecution, name of the petitioner was inserted and he was falsely implicated in the instant case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that in the present case, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses, out of which, Rajkumar (P.W. 2), Sheeshram (P.W.4) and Manohar Lal (P.W.5) were the eye witnesses. However, none of the eye witnesses has given any categorical statement in order to prove that at the time of the accident, tempo was being driven by the petitioner. Hence, none of the eye witnesses has supported the story of the prosecution. Owner of the vehicle was not produced in evidence to ascertain as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the offences alleged against the petitioner were committed by him, yet merely by misappreciating the evidence and in a quite mechanical manner, by recording conjectural findings, the trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and the appellate court also did not appreciate the grounds raised by the petitioner in criminal appeal pointing out material flaws and defects as also pervers