Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Bansi Lal (2025:Rj-Jd:34750-Db) on 6 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:34750-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 965/2007
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Banshi Lal S/o Shri Doolaram, B/c Vishnoi, R/o Guda Vishnoiyan,
PS Luni, District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 575/2007
Banshi Lal S/o Shri Daularam, B/c Vishnoi, R/o Guda Vishnoiyan,
Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur. (presently lodged in Central Jail,
Jodhpur.)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1378/2007
Netaram S/o Pokar Ram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Guda Bishnoiyan,
Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Banshi Lal S/o Shri Daulla Ram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Guda
Bishnoiyan, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Pravesh Kumar Rawla for
Mr. DL Rawla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Jangir for
Mr. Bhagirath Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:55:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34750-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLA-965/2007]
Per Hon’ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
06/08/2025
All the aforesaid matters, two criminal appeals and one
revision petition, have arisen out of the common judgment dated
24.07.2007, passed by learned Session Judge, Jodhpur, in Session
Case No.211/2005 by which the learned Trial Court acquitted the
accused Banshi Lal from offence under Sections 302, 450 IPC and
while convicting him for offence under Section 380 IPC, sentenced
him to undergo three years RI along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months
SI. Thus, they are being decided by this common order.
Criminal Appeal No.965/2007 by the State and Revision
Petition No.1378/2007 by the complainant Netaram, both were
preferred against the acquittal of the accused Banshi Lal from
offence under Sections 302, 450 IPC.
Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.575/2007 has been preferred
by the accused Banshi Lal against his conviction for offence under
Section 380 IPC.
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy
are that 20.08.2005, complainant Netaram submitted a written
report at Police Station Luni to the effect that on 19.08.2005 in
the evening after dinner, he went towards the fields. His wife and
children were alone at home. In the following morning, at about
6:30 AM, when he returned home, he found the dead-body of his
wife lying on the bed in a room and children were sleeping nearby.
A school belt and rope were found around the neck of the
complainant’s wife. The complainant immediately called his uncle
Ram Chandra and brothers. upon asking children, they denied to
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:55:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34750-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLA-965/2007]
hear any hue and cry. Some gold and silver ornaments were also
missing from the room.
On the said report, Police registered the FIR No.101/2005
and started investigation. On completion of investigation, police
filed challan against the accused Banshilal for offences under
Sections 302, 450, 380, 404 IPC.
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and
explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302, 450,
380 IPC to accused Banshi. He denied the charge and sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eleven witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in
support of its case.
The accused Banshilal was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and in defence, three witnesses were examined.
Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both
the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the
documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide
judgment dated 24.07.2007 acquitted the accused Banshilal from
the offences under Sections 302, 450 IPC, however, convicted and
sentenced him for the offence under Section 380 IPC as aforesaid.
Hence, the State and the complainant are challenging the acquittal
of the accused Banshilal and accused Banshilal is challenging his
conviction.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
complainant have vehemently submitted that there is ample
evidence against the accused Banshilal for commission of offence
under Sections 302, 450 IPC. The recovery of ornaments were
also made from the possession of accused Banshilal. It is further
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:55:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34750-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLA-965/2007]
submitted that the daughter of the complainant PW-3 Shobha,
who was merely nine years old, in her testimony clearly stated
that in the mid-night of incident, accused Banshilal entered the
house and slept in a room. She further stated that apart from
Banshi Lal, no other person entered the house. It is submitted
that despite availability of ample evidence against the accused
Banshilal for offence under Section 302, 450 IPC, the learned trial
court acquitted him from the said offences. While passing the
impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not considered the
evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective.
The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused Banshilal from offences under Sections 302, 450 IPC.
Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set
aside and the accused Banshilal ought to have been convicted and
sentenced for offence under Sections 302, 450 IPC.
Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused
Banshilal has submitted that there is no evidence against the
accused Banshilal to connect him with the offence under Sections
302, 450 IPC. It is submitted that if the accused Banshilal entered
the house of the complainant in the mid-night of incident, then
PW-3 Shobha would have likely narrated this incident to her
father, who subsequently, lodged the FIR, but in the FIR the
complainant did not mention the name of the accused Banshilal.
As an afterthought, the witness Shobha (PW-3), who was nine
years old, named Banshilal in her statement. However, she did
not know the exact time the incident occurred, nor she hear any
noise in the night. The complainant came to know about the
incident, only when he reached at home. Thus, the learned trial
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:55:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34750-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLA-965/2007]
court has rightly acquitted the accused Banshilal from the offences
under Sections 302, 450 IPC. However, so far as the recovery of
ornaments is concerned, the same was not identified in the
presence of any Magistrate. It is further submitted that PW-6
Somdev Soni, in her testimony, has deposed that the recovered
ornaments were prepared by him and the same were belonged to
the complainant. Counsel submits that except this testimony,
there is no identification in respect of the recovered ornaments.
Thus, the learned trial court has committed grave error in
convicting the accused Banshilal for offence under Section 380
IPC.
We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the
parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well
as record of the case.
On perusal of the written report, lodged by the complainant
Netaram (PW-1) appears that name of the accused Banshilal was
not mentioned therein. He deposed that in the following morning
of the incident, when he returned home, his daughter Shobha
informed him that last night accused Banshilal came at home and
slept in a room. He further states that some gold and silver
ornaments were also missing from the house. In his cross-
examination, he stated that his daughter Shobha told him about
Banshilal coming to his house. But, the said witness did not
mention this fact in the first information report.
PW-3 Shobha, who is daughter of the complainant and
deceased deposed that accused Banshilal, who is her uncle, came
in the night and slept in a room. She along with her mother
Parvati and younger brother Raghuveer slept in courtyard. When
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:55:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34750-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLA-965/2007]
in the following morning, her father (complainant) came at home,
her mother was lying dead on the cot. On asking, she informed
about accused Banshilal. In her cross-examination, the said
witness said that when she woke up in the following morning, she
came to know about the murder of her mother. She never heard
any hue and cry of her mother in the night.
PW-6 Somdev Soni deposed that the recovered ornaments
were prepared by him and that they belonged to the complainant
Netaram.
PW-10, the Investigating Officer, investigated the matter and
filed challan against the accused Banshilal. The I.O. stated that
the recovered ornaments were identified by PW-6 Somdev Soni,
but he never took any type of mould from outside the house.
The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses shows that the
complainant Netaram did not name the accused Banshilal in the
FIR despite the fact that he was informed about accused Banshilal
by her daughter Shobha (PW-3). It is very unnatural that the
accused Banshilal came in the mid-night and murdered the
deceased and no one heard any hue and cry. Even, the children
sleeping in the house at that time, also did not hear any noise of
their deceased mother and PW-3 Shobha, daughter of the
complainant Netaram, slept overnight and woke up in the morning
at about 6:30, upon call of her father. The conduct of PW-3
Shobha is very surprising and unnatural to accept.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Phoolchand Rathore reported in 2023 CriLR 724,
while observing that courts are generally reluctant to interfere
with an order of acquittal, recognized that such interference is
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:55:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34750-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLA-965/2007]
warranted when it becomes evident that the acquittal was based
on an entirely flawed reasoning process, legally erroneous, and
involved a perverse approach to the facts of the case. In such
circumstances, where the order of acquittal has led to a grave and
substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court may reverse the
acquittal and convert it into a conviction. In support of this
principle, the Court relied upon its prior judgments, emphasizing
the exceptional nature of such interference to rectify substantial
errors in the acquittal order. these are:-
21. In State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah &
Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169, reiterating the same view
it was observed:
“8. … This being an appeal against acquittal, this
Court would be slow in interfering with the findings of
the High Court, unless there is perverse appreciation
of the evidence which resulted in serious miscarriage
of justice and if the High Court has taken a plausible
view this Court would not be justified in interfering
with the acquittal passed in favour of the accused and
if two views are possible and the High Court had
chosen one view which is just and reasonable, then
also this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court.”
22. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in
Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020)
11 SCC 174, it was observed:
“190. … Reversal of a judgment and order of
conviction and acquittal of the accused should not
ordinarily be interfered with unless such
reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other
words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if
the court finds that no person properly instructed in
law could have upon analysis of the evidence on
record found the accused to be “not guilty”. …”
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:55:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34750-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLA-965/2007]
Similarly in the case of State of State of Uttrakhand Vs. Sanjay
Ram Tamta, reported in (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 159,’ the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:–
“6. Trite is the principle that the appellate courts would
be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially
since the presumption of innocence that is always
available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal
jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the
acquittal and unless there are very substantive and
compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal
of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the
findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible
from the compelling evidence is of guilt; appellate
courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal.
7. Recently, in Surender Singh Vs. State of
Uttrakhand, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to
various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid
down the principle in the following manner in SCC para
24:
24 It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal
position that the interference with the finding of
acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be
warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same
is based on a misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and 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.”
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the
opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its
case against the accused Banshilal for offence under Sections 302,
450 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The petitioner/State and
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:55:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34750-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLA-965/2007]
complainant have failed to show any error of law or on facts on
the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the
judgment under challenge. The judgment passed by the learned
trial court is detailed, reasoned and perfectly justified. Therefore,
the same does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality
warranting any interference from this Court.
Resultantly, the criminal appeal No.965/2007 preferred by
the State and the criminal revision petition No.1378/2007
preferred by the complainant Netaram against the acquittal of the
accused Banshilal are hereby dismissed having no substance.
So far as, the conviction and sentences passed against the
accused Banshillal for the offence under Section 380 IPC is
concerned, after the arrest of the accused Banshilal, gold and
silver ornaments were recovered, which were identified by PW-6
Somdev Soni. Thus, the learned trial court rightly convicted and
sentenced the accused Banshilal for offence under Section 380 IPC
and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court.
However, taking into consideration the facts that the incident
relates back to the year 2005 and accused Banshilal has so far
undergone a period of more than two years incarceration, out of
total sentence of three years RI, thus, while maintaining
conviction of the accused Banshilal for offence under Section 380
IPC, his sentence for the said offences is hereby reduced to the
period already undergone by him. The fine amount is hereby
maintained. Two months’ time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial court. The fine amount, if any, already
deposited by the accused Banshilal shall be adjusted. Accused
Banshilal is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:55:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34750-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLA-965/2007]
cancelled. If accused Banshilal fails to deposit the fine amount, he
shall undergo the default sentence of six months SI.
The criminal appeal No.575/2007 preferred by the accused
Banshilal is partly allowed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
43 to 45-MS/-
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:55:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)