Allowed

Prakash Chand v. State

Rajasthan HC27 Nov 2024CRLR/155/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition against convictions for rash and negligent driving causing death. The Court set aside the convictions, acquitting the petitioner due to inconsistent witness testimonies favoring an electric wire fault.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the trial court and appellate court acquitting the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304(4) IPC were set aside. The petitioner was acquitted of all charges.

Prakash Chand Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:48787]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 155/2005

¶4

Prakash Chand s/o Noratmal, r/o Bichdali Mohalla, Beawar, District Ajmer. (At present in District Jail Ajmer)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

	Versus
State of Rajasthan	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. J.K. Singhi, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. O.P. Pareek, Mr. Avinash Gouttam
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶8

Order

¶9

27/11/2024

¶10

The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.02.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No.180/1994, whereby, the conviction of the accused-petitioner passed under Sections 279 & 304(A) IPC was confirmed. The Trial Court vide order dated 22.12.2004 convicted the accused under Sections 279 & 304 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of 2 months along with fine and 2 years of simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/respectively.

¶11

It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that both the Court below failed to appreciate that there was no evidence to the fact that the accused-petitioner drove the vehicle

[2024:RJ-JP:48787]

[CRLR-155/2005]

(2 of 3)

rashly or negligently and thereby caused death of the deceased Shivraj & Kamal Kishore. It is also contended that the eye witnesses PW-1 Laxman, PW-2 Pushkar Narayan, PW-10 Rajendra Prasad & PW-11 Noratmal were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution story, despite that the Trial Court and the Appellate court concluded that the accused-petitoner caused death of the deceased by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also contended that the order of the learned Trial Court is perverse and against the available evidence. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court may be set aside.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal revision petition.

¶17

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶18

PW-1 Laxman is the material eye witness and also the complainant. In his deposition before the Court, he has stated that accident occurred due to falling of the electric wire and petitioner did not drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. In his crossexamination by the learned Public Prosecutor, the witness denied the prosecution story.

¶19

Similarly, other material witnesses PW-5 Pushkar Narayan in his statement before the Court below has also stated that the deceased Shivraj & Kamal Kishore died due to current as the electric wire fell upon them. His version before the court is of hearsay witness and not as the eye witness.

¶20

Similarly, PW-10 Rajendra Prasad in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he went to place of occurrence after the accident and shown his unawareness about the occurrence of accident.

[2024:RJ-JP:48787]

[CRLR-155/2005]

(3 of 3)

PW-11 Noratmal has also been declared hostile in his examination-in-chief though he stated that a truck came in a rash and negligent manner resulting into breakng of the electric wire and due to that two children Shivraj & Kamal Kishore died at the spot. The witness was declared hostile and in his crossexamination, he has denied that petitioner was driving the said vehicle and that petitioner was driver of Truck No. RSE 719. The evidence of PW-11 Noratmal is also suspicious and not believable.

¶25

Both the Court below did not appreciate the evidence properly and committed error in convicting the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 & 304(A) of IPC. The order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court convicting the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 & 304 of IPC is set aside.

¶26

The present criminal revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court under sections 279 & 304(A) of IPC are hereby set aside. The accused-petitioner is acquitted under Sections 279 & 304(A) of the IPC. The bail bonds furnished by him are hereby set aside. The original criminal record of the case be sent to the Court concerned henceforth.

¶27

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶28

Keshav/7

Prakash Chand v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chand v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamshed S/O Yunus @ Lal Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kedar S/O Shri Chhotu Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhannaram S/O Nathu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Nimesh Rajora S/O Shri Harish Kumar Rajora Vs State of Rajasthan

Narsingh S/O Madan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Giriraj Jangid S/O Ramdhan Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan