[2026:RJ-JD:17662]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 82/1998 State Of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Guman Singh S/o Shri Ajet Singh R/o Village Veerana PS Sayala Tehsil & District Jalore ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

07/04/2026

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State assailing the judgment dated 09.09.1997 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) cum Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalore in Cr. Case No.115/1996whereby the accused–respondent Guman Singh has been acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A IPC by extending the benefit of doubt.

2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal arises pursuant to grant of leave under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., and thus has been heard on merits.

3. The prosecution case, in essence, emanates from an incident dated 03.11.1994, wherein it was alleged that due to snapping of an electric wire in the agricultural field of the accused, certain labourers engaged at the site came into contact with the live wire, resulting in instantaneous electrocution and consequent death of multiple persons. It was alleged that the accused, by reason of his negligent conduct in relation to the handling or repair of the said electric line, was responsible for the fatal occurrence.

3.1. Upon initiation of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and subsequent investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused under Section 304-A IPC. The accused denied the allegations and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses and produced documentary evidence; however, the learned trial court, upon appreciation of the material on record, acquitted the accused respondent by granting the benefit of doubt. Hence the instant appeal.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant–State and has carefully perused the impugned judgment along with the entire evidence available on record.

5. At the outset, it is apposite to reiterate the well-entrenched principle that an appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, exercises a circumscribed jurisdiction. Unless the findings recorded by the trial court are shown to be perverse, manifestly illegal, or based on misappreciation of evidence, interference is neither warranted nor justified.

5.1. Upon a meticulous and holistic reappraisal of the material on record, this Court finds that the learned trial court has undertaken a comprehensive and reasoned analysis of the prosecution evidence. The conclusion of acquittal is not predicated upon conjecture or surmise, but upon a discernible absence of legally admissible and credible evidence establishing the essential ingredients of the offence.

5.2. The gravamen of the charge under Section 304-A IPC lies in establishing a direct nexus between the negligent act of the accused and the resultant death. However, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent evidence demonstrating that the accused had committed any rash or negligent act amounting to criminal culpability.

5.3. None of the prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed as to the manner in which the electric current came to be transmitted or how the accused was directly responsible for the same. The entire case rests upon conjectural assertions rather than substantive proof.

5.4. A significant portion of the prosecution witnesses are either hearsay witnesses or witnesses who arrived at the scene subsequent to the occurrence. Their testimonies, being derivative in nature, do not satisfy the threshold of admissibility required to establish culpability in criminal law.

5.5. Even the witnesses examined do not attribute any specific negligent act to the accused. The absence of direct, ocular, or circumstantial evidence linking the accused with the alleged negligent handling of the electric line renders the prosecution case inherently fragile.

5.6. The investigati