[2025:RJ-JD:20951]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 710/1999 Lrs Of Jagdish Prakash

1. Smt. Vijiya W/o Lt. Jagdish Prakash aged 46 years;

2. Dinesh Singh S/o Jagdish Prakash aged 28 years

3. Himanshu S/o Jagdish Prakash aged 15 years through his mother Smt. Vijiya W/o Lt. Jagdish Prakash;

All B/c Choudhary, R/o B-94, Veer Durga Das Nagar, Pali

4. Smt. Jaishree W/o Pankaj & D/o Lt. Jagdish Prakash Aged 29 years B/c Choudhary R/o Chopasani Housing Board, Nr. Central Academy School, Jodhpur ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. V.R.Choudhary Mr. Naresh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 19/02/2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 05/05/2025 BY THE COURT:-

1. This appeal is pending before the court since last 25 years, which is directed against the judgment dated 23-10-1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No.07/1997, whereby the accused appellant was acquitted from the charges under Sections 302, 307, and 325 of the IPC, however, he was instead convicted under Sections 304A and 338 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer two years imprisonment on both counts along with fine and default clause.

2. The State of Rajasthan had also opted to challenge the same judgment for the reason of acquitting the accused Jagdish Prakash from the charges under Sections 302, 307, and 325 of the IPC, and that D.B. Criminal Appeal No.166/2000 has been disposed of on the count of being abetted since the accused respondent, Jagdish Prakash has passed away.

3. The instant appeal is pending before the Court challenging the finding of guilt of the deceased appellant Jagdish Prakash under Sections 338 and 304A of the IPC. The legal representatives of the deceased Jagdish Prakash, moved an application for their substitution in the appeal since they wanted to continue challenge to the finding of guilt and for removal of stigma of conviction against their beloved family member.

3.1. Vide order dated 11-02-2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the application of the legal representatives of deceased appellant and thus they have been permitted to make a challenge to the judgment of conviction passed against the deceased Jagdish Prakash.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

4.1. The prosecution has been launched based on the accusation on 24-11-1996, the appellant drove a Commander vehicle being registration number RJ-14-2171 and rammed over Chhogalal and as a consequence of which he received injuries and died on 25-11- 1996. There was allegation that the accused Jagdish Prakash had hit the vehicle to the deceased Chhogalal with an intent to kill him and to cause injuries, simple and grievous.

4.2. The prosecution has produced 27 witnesses and placed reliance on 32 documents to substantiate the charges.

4.3. The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he abjured from the allegations. He also produced DW1 Mumtaz Ahmed in his defense.

4.4. The learned trial Court has very meticulously examined the evidence brought on record and after making threadbare discussion of the evidence on record, he concluded failure of the prosecution in proving the charge under Sections 302, 307, and 325 of the IPC. The learned Judge, after churning the evidence, concluded guilt of the accused under Section 304A and 338 of the IPC.

5. I have gone through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and it is revealing that there was a property dispute between the deceased and the father of the accused. The story narrated in FIR, Exhibit P/14, has not been approved by the investigator to the extent it relates to a pre-plan or a conspired incident. For making a further critical appreciation of evidence, I have again perused the statements of PW-1 Nirmala, PW-14 Narottam Prakash, PW-24 Naresh who also sustained injuries, PW- 25 Chandra Prakash and upon making compari