[2025:RJ-JD:13378]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 8/2014 State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Appellant Versus Ram Chandra S/o Hetram, By Caste Bishnoi, R/o Muklava, P.S.

Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shardul Bishnoi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

10/03/2025 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378 (iii) & (i) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 29.08.2013 passed by learned RHJS Court Officer, Village Court, Anupgarh, Sriganganagar, in Cr. Case No.30/2010.

Brief facts of the case are that on 15.04.2006, complainant Lal Chand gave a parcha bayan to the Police, while being admitted at the Government Hospital, Srivijaynagar to the effect that the he was standing along with his sister in law- Saroj and nephew- Pradeep and some other persons at Kupli bus-stand. Complainant further stated that a bus being driven very recklessly, hit his sister in law and nephew and the bus overturned, as a result of which, his sister in law and nephew sustained serious injuries as well as passengers sitting inside the bus also sustained injuries. Further, complainant stated that while being taken to the Hospital, his sister in law and nephew succumbed to the injuries. On the said report, Police registered a case against the accused-respondent and started investigation.

On completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of IPC and cognizance was taken against the accused- respondent for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 & 304A of IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges. The accused-respondents denied the same and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of accused respondent were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 29.08.2013 acquitted the accused- respondent from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this criminal appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304A IPC. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304A IPC.

Learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court.

On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-

respondent from offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304A IPC.

In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, :

2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing a