[2025:RJ-JD:30500]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1019/2012 Subba Singh @ Sukhpal Singh S/o Shri Bakhtawar Singh Ramgadiya Aged 40 years R/o Thakari Tehsil Raisinghnagar District Sri Ganganagar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kirti Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

11/07/2025

1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 22.06.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 16/2004, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under:

Offence for which convicted	Substantive sentence	Fine and default sentence
Section 279 IPC	Six months’ SI	Rs.500/- in default to undergo 15 days SI
Section 304-A IPC	Two Years’SI	Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month’s SI

The appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 279/2012) preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar vide judgment dated 03.12.2012. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution was set in motion based on a written complaint submitted by Aad Ram on 25.11.2003 at Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar, alleging that the petitioner, while driving a truck (bearing registration No. RJ-07-G-4240) at high speed, struck his niece, Poonam Rani, near Vikas Chowk around 5:00 PM, resulting in her instantaneous death. Pursuant to this, FIR No. 483/2003 was registered for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and trial commenced.

2.1. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited several documents. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied all allegations. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner, and the Appellate Court affirmed this conviction. Hence, the instant revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record thoroughly.

4. It is a settled principle in prosecutions under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC that the prosecution must establish, with clarity, that the accused was indeed the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the incident, and that he was driving in a rash or negligent manner leading directly to the injury or fatality. Mere occurrence of an accident or presence of high speed, in the absence of corroborative facts showing recklessness or absence of due care, is insufficient to attract criminal liability.

4.1. In the instant case, while the occurrence of the accident and the unfortunate death of Poonam Rani are not in dispute, the prosecution failed to produce cogent and credible evidence to establish that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle involved, let alone that he drove it rashly or negligently.

4.2. Out of eight prosecution witnesses, only PW-5 Dilip Kumar provided any semblance of testimony regarding identification. However, it is evident from the record that PW-5 first saw the petitioner in court on 21.06.2007 and had no prior opportunity to see or confront him. No test identification parade was conducted during investigation, and the so-called identification before the Magistrate was conducted with only one individual in the dock, rendering the process legally infirm and devoid of evidentiary value.

4.3. Even in his examination-in-chief, PW-5 merely stated that he heard a loud noise and rushed to the scene where he observed the driver flee. He neither saw the driver’s face nor provided any physical description during investigation. His claim of learning the driver's name later remains unsubstantiated, with no indication of when, how, or from whom such information was received.

4.4. It is also well-established that speed alone does not co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document