##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14336]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 598/1998

State of Rajasthan ----Appellant

Versus Karne Ram S/o Ram Kumar, R/o Jalpura District Jhunjhunu

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Cha nda wat , Dy.G.A.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Gill

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 05/03/2026 DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED 05/03/2026

FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/04/2026

BY THE COURT:-

1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I, Piligbanga District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.15/1997, whereby the respondent–accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable

under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. I have heard the Dy.G.A. as well as counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent–accused. The impugned judgment as well as the entire record of the case have been minutely

scrutinized.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, arises out of an incident dated 26.12.1996, wherein it was alleged that the accused, while driving a truck bearing registration No. RRF-4525 on the Pilibanga–

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:31:24 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 10:03:51 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14336] (2 of 6) [CRLA-598/1998] Rawatsar road, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and collided with a motorcycle driven by deceased Omprakash,

resulting in fatal injuries to him.

3.1. On the basis of a statement submitted by Kaluram, an FIR under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused. The learned trial Court framed charges accordingly, to which the

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3.2. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eyewitnesses including Jagdishchandra, Kaluram, and Banwarilal, along with the medical officer and investigating officer. Documentary evidence such as site plan, seizure memos, and postmortem report were also exhibited. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and asserted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Vide judgment impugned whereby the

respondent has been acquitted, hence the instant appeal.

4. Upon a comprehensive and reappreciative evaluation of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has undertaken a meticulous, analytical, and legally sound scrutiny of the entire material, and has rightly returned a finding

of acquittal.

4.1. At the outset, the trial Court has correctly noted that the case of the prosecution rests substantially on the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses, namely PW-1 Jagdishchandra, PW-3 Kaluram, and PW-4 Banwarilal. However, these witnesses are not wholly independent, as their proximity and acquaintance with the

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:31:24 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 10:03:51 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14336] (3 of 6) [CRLA-598/1998] deceased stand admitted, thereby necessitating cautious and

circumspect evaluation of their evidence.

4.2. The trial Court has elaborately highlighted the material contradictions inter se these witnesses. Their versions regarding the sequence of events, their respective positions at the time of the incident, and the manner in which the accident occurred, are replete with inconsistencies. Notably, contradictions emerge regarding who reached the spot first, the relative positioning of

vehicles, and the presence of a trolley ahead of the truck.

4.3. A pivotal aspect which has been rightly emphasized by the trial Court is the surrounding physical circumstances of the incident. The road in question was admittedly about 22 feet wide, partially damaged, and the incident occurred during evening hours when visibility was diminishing. The presence of a loaded trolley ahead of the truck, coupled with a heavily loaded truck