[2025:RJ-JD:24419]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 419/2005 Laxmandan S/o Khodidan, R/o Padarli Charanan, PS Chitalvana, Tehsil Sanchore District Jalore ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 404/2005 Bhanwarlal S/o Babu Lal R/o Gunga, Tehsil Shiv District Barmer ----Petitioner Versus State ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Acharya Mr. Vijay Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharavan Singh Rathore, Dy.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

09/05/2025

1. These criminal revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sanchore, District Jalore in criminal Original Case No.169/1998, whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:-

Name of the accused	Offence for which convicted	Substantive sentence	Fine and default sentence
Laxman Dan Bhanwar Lal	Section 279 IPC	3 Month’s SI	Fine of Rs.500/- each and indefault to further undergo 15 days’ SI
	Section337 IPC	3 Month’s SI	Fine of Rs.500/- each and indefault to further undergo 15

			days’SI
	Section 338 IPC	One year’s SI	Fine of Rs.500/- each and indefault to further undergo 15 days’ SI
	Section 304-A IPC	Two years’SI	Fine of Rs.1,000/- each and indefault to further undergo one month’s SI

The appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore vide order dated 05.05.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.2/2001 & 54/2000. As per counsel of Bhanwar Lal-petitioner, he died during pendency of the Appeal, thus the revision petition (404/2005) is abated to his extent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an accident occurred on 31.01.1998 involving two vehicles: one driven by Petitioner Bhawarlal and the other by Petitioner Laxman Dan. The prosecution alleged that due to the rash and negligent driving of both petitioners, the said accident occurred resulting in the death of some persons and injuries to others.

2.1. As per Exhibit P-48, the Parcha Bayan of victim Jagmal Ram recorded by the police, he was a passenger in the jeep driven by Petitioner Laxman Dan. It is alleged therein that an Armada jeep came from the opposite side and the driver Laxman Dan, failed to provide adequate space, resulting in a head-on collision. Based on this statement, FIR Exhibit P-49 was registered.

3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Upon perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, the following observations emerge:

• PW1 Poonmaram could not explain the manner of the accident and only confirmed that there was a collision between the two vehicles.

• PW2 Jagmal Ram, contrary to his first-hand narrative in Exhibit P-48, stated before the Court that the jeep in which he was sitting was hit by the Armada jeep. In expressed terms, in his oath statement he held the Armada driver responsible, who, as per records, was Petitioner Bhawarlal. His Court statement contradicts his earlier version in the Parcha Bayan and FIR.

• PW4 Suresh and PW5 Malaram were failed to narrate how the accident took place or who was at fault.

• PW6 Dashrath Giri, a passenger in the Armada jeep driven by accused Bhawarlal, stated that Bhawarlal was driving properly on the correct side of the road and that the jeep driven by Laxman Dan came at a high speed and hit their vehicle. His version directly contradicts the testimony of PW2 Jagmal Ram and others.

• PW7 Dhanna and PW8 Jeeva did not witness the actual cause of the accident.

• PW9 Smt. Surti, a passenger in the Armada jeep, stated that the vehicle coming from the opposite direction was at high speed and responsible for the accident. However, she was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution.

• PW10 Chutraram is not a witness to the incident.

• PW11 Roopdas, who was in the jeep driven by Bhawarl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document