HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No v. For

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Reserved on Pronounced on Order :: :: 19/ 06 /05/2025

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1994 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year

2. This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.08.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Appeal No.86/2005, whereby the conviction of the petitioner was affirmed. The learned Judicial Magistrate Khanpur, District Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.199/1995, vide its order dated

23.11.2004 has convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as under:- Under Section 279 of IPC :- [2025:RJ-JP:18957] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1098/2006] Three months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 337 of IPC :- Three months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 338 of IPC :- Six months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 304-A of IPC :- One year simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. All sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The matter was listed before this Court on 22.01.2025 to secure the presence of the petitioner. The Court vide order dated

22.01.2025 directed the concerned Superintendent of Police, Baran, to execute the bailable warrant issued against the petitioner. The bailable warrant was served upon the petitioner, however, the petitioner remained absent and no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. This Court vide its order dated

12.02.2025, granted one more opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner to argue the case. On 19.03.2025, both the petitioner and his counsel remained absent, therefore, this revision petition is being decided on merits.

4. It is mentioned in the revision petition that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts [2025:RJ-JP:18957] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1098/2006] mentioned in the site plan i.e. Exhibit-P.10 and the witness to the site plan PW.5 Devkaran did not support the prosecution’s version. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court overlooked the site plan and so also the statement of PW.5 Devkaran. It is also stated in the revision petition that the statements of PW.2 Virendra Singh, PW.3 Suresh Kunwar, PW.4 Jaswant Kunwar and PW.8 Dilip Rathi are not reliable and in their statement they have only stated that driver was driving the vehicle at high fast speed. The bare reading of the statements of all the witnesses, who were sitting in the Jeep does not prove the guilt of the petitioner and from their statements, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the overturning of the vehicle. It is also contended that the Jeep did not collide with any other vehicle, rather it overturned because of detachment of the front wheel, which was beyond the control of the driver and the driver tried his best to control the vehicle, however, it was beyond his control. It is further contended that the ‘Parcha Bayan’ i.e., Exhibit-P-12 cannot be relied upon as the person who recorded the ‘Parcha Bayan’ was not produced to depose his statement, therefore the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 23.11.2004 and the judgment passed by the Appellate Court dated 24.08.2006 may be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the revision petition and contended that both the Courts below after thoroughly appreciating the statements of eye-witnesses have concurred with the prosecution’s story and concluded that the petitioner drove the vehicle at high speed resulting into its overturning and due to which the deceased Kamlesh succumbed to [2025:RJ-JP:18957] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1098/2006] death and Virendra Singh and Laxmi Kunwar sustained grievous and simple injuries. It is argued that eye-witnesses PW.2 Virendra Singh, PW.4 Jashwant Kunwar, PW.3 Suresh Kunwar and PW.8 Dilip in their depositions before the Court have clearly stated that the petitioner drove the Jeep at high speed which resulted in its overturning. It is further contended that due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, Kamlesh died and Virendra Singh and Laxmi Kunwar sustained grievous and simple injuries. The statements of the witnesses are well corroborated by injury report and postmortem report. It is also argued that the scope of revision is very limited and the Court cannot reappriciate the evidence unless there is grave perversity in the findings arrived at by the Courts. The trial Court has adequately sentenced the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC, the petitioner has remained in custody for only one month and 27 days and the said period is not sufficient or commensurate with the offence committed by the petitioner, therefore, the revision petition is devoid of merit and requires dismissal.

7. Heard and perused the material available on record. It is alleged against the petitioner that on 18.12.1994, while driving the vehicle bearing registration No.MP-009A-509, he overturned it, which resulted into the death of Kamlesh and Virendra Singh and Suresh to sustained grievous and simple injuries. The learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court relied upon the testimony of eye-witnesses, who have corroborated the version of prosecution and categorically stated that the said vehicle was overturned due to speedy driving of the vehicle. The grounds raised in the revision petition are bereft of [2025:RJ-JP:18957] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1098/2006] any merit and not sustainable as the scope of revision petition is very limited and there is no patent illegality in both the judgments passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court for reaching to the conclusion regarding rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.

8. Therefore, considering the above facts, the revision petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court is affirmed.

9. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

10. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve out his remaining sentence. Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-6 (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J