State vs Fateh Lal on 23 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

State vs Fateh Lal on 23 July, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 310/2007

State of Rajasthan
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
Fateh Lal son of Geeshu Lal Ji, R/o Sinhar, Nathdwara, P.S.
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Sudhir Saruparia
                                   Mr. Vikram Choudhary (Amicus
                                   Curiae)



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Judgment

Reserved on : 14/07/2025

Pronounced on : 23/07/2025

(PER HON’BLE BENIWAL, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred laying a challenge to the

judgment of acquittal dated 19.09.2005 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, in Sessions Case

No.27/2003 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Fateh Lal), whereby the

accused-respondent, namely, Fateh Lal has been acquitted of the

charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the

year 2003 and the present appeal has been pending since the year

2007.

3. The facts in nutshell are that an FIR was lodged by the

complainant Ganesh Lal with allegation that on 08.08.2003 at

around 7.00 A.M., he saw some smoke coming out from the house

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB] (2 of 12) [CRLA-310/2007]

of one Rang Lal Mahajan. Some persons were gathered outside

the house of Rang Lal Mahajan, however, his house was locked.

Later, his brother Fateh Lal got the keys and opened the door. He

along with other persons entered the house, wherein Rang Lal

Mahajan was lying dead and blood was oozing out from his nose.

His hand was lying on the pillow and smoke was also coming out

of the burnt pillow. It was reported that someone murdered Rang

Lal and has locked his house.

3.1. On the said report being filed, police started investigation

and after completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed against

the accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 302 and

201 IPC to which he denied and sought for trial. The learned Trial

Court on the basis of the charges framed against the accused-

respondent examined as many as 23 prosecution witnesses, 35

documents and two defence witnesses. After examining the entire

record, the learned Trial Court proceeded to acquit the accused-

respondent for the offences alleged against him.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State while challenging the

impugned judgment made the following submissions:-

(i) the deceased Rang Lal and accused Fateh Lal were real

brothers. When smoke was seen coming out of the house of Rang

Lal, the complainant-Ganesh Lal and other persons enquired about

the keys of the house and at that point, accused Fateh Lal stated

that he had a second key. Thereafter, lock was opened by Fateh

Lal and therefore, it is clear that it was Fateh Lal who committed

the murder of his brother Rang Lal and locked the house;

(ii) the motive behind the above crime is apparent as Rang Lal

had renounced the world and had become a ‘Sadhu’. The accused-

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB] (3 of 12) [CRLA-310/2007]

Fateh Lal was having eyes on the property belonging to Rang Lal

and he wanted to grab the share of Rang Lal and, therefore, he is

the only person who could have benefitted from the above crime.

Therefore, the surrounding circumstances also point towards the

involvement of the accused-respondent in the crime in question;

and

(iii) the bloodstained clothes of the accused-respondent after

recovery were sent to Forensic Lab and as per the FSL Report (Ex.

P/20), the bloodstains found on the clothes of accused-respondent

matched the blood group of deceased Rang Lal which further

connects the accused-respondent to the crime.

4.1 On the basis of the above submissions, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the prosecution

was able to fully establish the circumstances in which accused-

respondent committed the crime. Though, there was no eye-

witness to the incident, however, the chain of circumstances

clearly establish the fact that it was the accused-respondent who

murdered Rang Lal in order to grab his property. Despite such

evidence being available on record, the learned Trial Court

committed serious error in acquitting the accused-respondent and,

therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be

reversed and the accused-respondent be convicted for the

offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-

respondent made the following submissions:-

(i) though it is undisputed that the deceased Rang Lal and

accused-respondent Fateh Lal were real brothers, however, there

was no property dispute between the brothers as Rang Lal had

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB] (4 of 12) [CRLA-310/2007]

already renounced and relinquished all his share in property in

favour of Fateh Lal and therefore, the motive which the

prosecution has shown is not at all established in order to connect

the accused-respondent with the crime. Further, DW-1 Shankar Lal

has deposed that deceased and accused had cordial relationship.

The Investigation Officer in the present case has also deposed that

there was no property dispute between the accused-respondent

and the deceased Rang Lal;

(ii) the bloodstained clothes as recovered from the accused-

respondent also do not support the prosecution story as these

bloodstains were sustained by accused when the body of the

deceased Rang Lal was shifted from house to ambulance and

thereafter to hospital. The accused-respondent helped to shift the

deceased and since blood was oozing out from the body of Rang

Lal, the accused-respondent also sustained some bloodstains on

his clothes. This factum of accused-respondent being present at

the spot when the ambulance came was supported by prosecution

witness namely PW-1 Ganesh Lal;

(iii) PW-7 Ratan Lal is last seen witness and he deposed that at

around 6-7 P.M. on the previous day of incident, he had seen that

one Shankar Gameti and deceased Rang Lal were consuming

Ganja and there was some quarrel between them. Even this last

seen witness do not support the prosecution story as accused-

respondent was not present when such quarrel took place

between Shankar Gameti and Rang Lal. Other than this witness,

the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that

accused and deceased were last seen together; and

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB] (5 of 12) [CRLA-310/2007]

(iv) the bloodstained clothes were recovered two days after the

incident and meanwhile, they were already washed and, therefore,

the FSL report with regard to the bloodstained clothes becomes

highly doubtful and loses its credibility.

5.1 In response to the issue of having key, learned counsel for

the accused-respondent submitted that Ranglal was Sadhu and

he, on and off, keep coming and going oaut of the house and they

had two keys, one with Ranglal and other with accused-

respondent Fatehlal.

5.2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent while relying

on the above submissions submitted that prosecution has

completely failed to connect each dot so as to finally connect the

accused-respondent with the crime. The chain of circumstances at

every stage is full of doubt and, therefore, prosecution has

completely failed, not only to connect the circumstances but even

to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so as to convict

accused-respondent under Section 302 IPC. Counsel thereafter

submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire

record, so also the prosecution witnesses and rightly reached to

the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish its case

beyond reasonable doubt so as to convict the accused-respondent

under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. In view of the submissions made by the respective parties, it

clearly emerges out that the present case is based totally on

circumstantial evidence. A complete chain of circumstances needs

to be established to prove guilt of an accused so as to convict the

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB] (6 of 12) [CRLA-310/2007]

accused for offence under Section 302 IPC. In the present case,

the last-seen witness PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Chandra has deposed that

he had seen Rang Lal at around 6-7 p.m., the day before the

incident, however, this witness does not support the prosecution

story as the accused-respondent was not present in the evening,

day before when some quarrel took place between Rang Lal and

one Shankar Gameti. That being so, the prosecution has not been

able to establish or to connect the accused-respondent based on

‘last seen theory’.

8. As far as the motive as alleged by the prosecution against

the accused-respondent for committing the crime is concerned, it

is to be noted that the Investigation Officer has categorically

deposed that there was no property dispute between the deceased

and the accused-respondent. That apart, there is no evidence on

record to hint any dispute pending between the brothers. It is

noted that the Investigating Officer has been examined twice as

prosecution witness as PW-15 and PW-23. The Investigating

Officer (PW-23) has stated that the deceased had already

transferred his property in favour of accused-respondent vide

Ex.C/1. The fact that the deceased Rang Lal who had already

renounced the world and was a Sadhu coupled with the fact that

all the property rights, whatsoever, were already transferred in

favour of the accused-respondent, clearly reflects that there was

nothing to indicate that accused Fateh Lal had any ill-intention to

kill his brother Rang Lal.

8.1 PW-2 Ganesh has also deposed that Rang Lal was residing in

back portion of the house of the accused and Rang Lal often used

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB] (7 of 12) [CRLA-310/2007]

to stay and sleep with him and thus, the relations between the

two were cordial.

9. The statement of PW-1 Ganesh Lal, who is the first

informant, is self-contradictory. At one point of time, he stated

that Fateh Lal opened the lock and then they went and saw Rang

Lal lying dead with blood oozing out from his nose. At the same

time, in the cross-examination, he stated that when police arrived

at the house of deceased, the same was locked from outside. Such

contradictory statement makes the deposition unreliable. It is to

be noted that PW-2 Ganesh, PW-3 Mangi Lal, PW-10 Mangi Lal,

PW-11 Ranglal S/o Kalulal and PW-12 Manna Lal turned hostile

and, therefore, the prosecution story itself becomes weak.

Coupled with this, the key witness of the prosecution i.e. PW-7

Ratanlal to establish ‘last seen’ theory also does not support the

prosecution story as Rang Lal was last seen with Shankar Gameti

and not with the accused-respondent. The statement of PW-5

Sohan Singh is also worth nothing. It may be stated that PW-5

Sohan Singh is ‘panchnama’ witness to ‘naksha moka’, however,

he deposed that police though inspected the site but ‘panchnama’

was not prepared in his presence and he simply signed the papers.

PW-1 in his statement deposed that he along with accused-

respondent and others had opened the lock and had found Rang

Lal lying dead and, thereafter, he had informed the police. PW-15

Ganpat Lal narrates the story which runs contrary to what was

deposed by PW-1 Ganesh Lal. He deposed that Fateh Lal had the

key and opened the lock and saw Rang Lal lying dead with blood

coming out from his head. He has also deposed that Fateh Lal

helped in shifting the dead body to the ambulance, however, later

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB] (8 of 12) [CRLA-310/2007]

at that very moment, PW-15 said that Fateh Lal did not join in

shifting the dead body of the deceased. This self-contradictory

statement of PW-1 with regard to the shifting of body and the

presence of Fateh Lal, raises doubt as to involvement of the

accused.

10. Further, the Investigation Officer when examined as PW-23

deposed that lock of the house was already opened before the

police reached the place of incident. This version of PW-23 read

with the statement made by him as PW-15, prima facie reflects

contradiction. On one hand he states that when the police reached

the spot, the house of Rang Lal was locked whereas on other

hand, he states that lock of the house was already opened at the

time when the police reached the spot. That being so, the

investigation itself creates shadow of doubt on the prosecution

story and, therefore, the same cannot be treated to be

trustworthy.

11. We have also examined the findings given by the learned

Trial Court and the reasoning given so as to acquit the accused-

respondent and find that the learned Trial Court has committed no

error so as to extend benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent

in view of the serious contradictions in the statements of

prosecution witnesses. In the present case, neither the motive

was established nor the prosecution was able to establish the

theory of ‘last seen’ and that being so, there is no reason to

interefere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Trial

Court.

12. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce

the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB] (9 of 12) [CRLA-310/2007]

Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of

Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011, decided on

12.02.2024) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors.

Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010,

decided on 19.04.2024), as hereunder-:

Mallappa & Ors. (Supra):

“36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be
summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial
and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all
evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a
miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere
possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of
acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in
appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically
address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and
must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate
Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or
fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra):

“38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the
principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of
CrPC as follows:

“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB] (10 of 12) [CRLA-310/2007]

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a
possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the
evidence on record;

8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion
which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record
was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.”

39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused
has to be exercised within the four corners of the following
principles: (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission
to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two
reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with
the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available
on record.”

13. The learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of

acquittal of the accused-respondents under Sections 302 and 201

IPC, which in the given circumstances, is justified in law, because

as per the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, to the effect that

the judgment of the Trial Court can be reversed by the Appellate

Court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of

law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the present case,

the learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment

had examined each and every witnesses at a considerable length

and duly analyzed the documents produced before it, coupled with

examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and

thus, the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity or error

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB] (11 of 12) [CRLA-310/2007]

of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in

the instant appeal.

14. The scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by

the learned Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned

judgment of the learned Trial Court demonstrates a legally

plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify

the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

aforementioned judgment, and thus, on that count also, the

impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the

instant appeal.

15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into

the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the

aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit

case warranting any interference by this Court.

16. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.

17. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A

Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

(B.N.S.S.), 2023, the accused-respondent is directed to furnish a

personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond in the

like amount, before the learned Trial Court, which shall be made

effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event

of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for

grant of leave, the accused-respondent, on receipt of notice

thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as

he would be called upon to do so.

18. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of

the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:31061-DB] (12 of 12) [CRLA-310/2007]

19. This Court is thankful to Mr. Vikram Choudhary, who has

rendered his assistance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the

accused-respondent, in the present adjudication.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

ajayS/skm/-

(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:46:13 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)