[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Shanker Singh And Ors … on 5 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 389/2003
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shanker Singh S/o Laxman Singh Rawat, R/o Bhuriya Kheda
Kalla Bhadeta, PS Jawaja, District Ajmer.
2. Chhagan Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh Rawat, R/o Village & Post
Durgabaas, PS Beawar City, at present Fatehpuriya, Sendra
Road, Beawar, District Ajmer.
3. Pravin Singh S/o Lal Singh Rawat, R/o Bhuriya Kheda Kalla,
PS Jawaja, District Ajmer.
4. Jai Singh S/o Rajendra Singh Rawat, R/o Biliyawas Borela, PS
Bhim, District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoriya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
Per Hon’ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
05/08/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against
the judgment dated 14.08.2002, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Sessions Case
No.100/2001, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondents from the offences punishable under Sections
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy
are that on 15.05.2021, complainant Mahendra Singh (PW-1)
submitted a written report at Police Station Bhim to the effect that
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]
he along with Jai Singh, Pintu & Shanker Singh visited the
residence of Moti Singh for dinner. Between 9 PM and 10 PM, a
young boy arrived there and asked about Pintu. At that time, Pintu
also arrived there and they subsequently left together. The
complainant, Jai Singh and Shanker Singh can identify that boy.
On the said night, Pintu did not return. The following morning,
complainant’s uncle Udai Singh informed them that the dead-body
of Pintu was discovered lying in the field. It was alleged that his
brother Pintu was murdered by that boy, allegedly with the
assistance of others, by using a sharp edged weapon.
On the aforesaid complaint, Police registered a case against
the accused-respondents and started investigation. On completion
of investigation, Police filed challan against the accused
respondents for offence under Sections 302, 120B/34 IPC.
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and
explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302, 302/34,
120B IPC to the accused respondents. They denied the charge and
sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as twenty-nine witnesses and also got exhibited relevant
documents in support of its case.
The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and they were confronted with the evidence adduced
against them during the course of trial to which they denied and
stated that they did not commit any offence. They were innocent
and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both
the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]
documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide
judgment dated 14.08.2002 acquitted the accused-respondents
from offence under Sections 302, 302/34, 120B IPC. Hence this
appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-
respondents.
Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that the
learned trial court has failed to appreciate the statements of the
witnesses in right perspective manner and hence committed grave
and serious error of law in acquitting the accused-respondents
from the offence under Sections 302, 302/34, 120B IPC. It is
further contended that this case is primarily based on
circumstantial evidence, which includes the evidence of last seen
theory, the recovery of weapon and clothes as well as the
establishment of motive by the prosecution, but the learned trial
court discarded the evidence of last seen as well as other
circumstantial evidence and recovery of weapon. It is submitted
that learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has
neither appreciated the evidence of the prosecution, nor has
applied its judicious mind, which resulted into loss of substantial
justice. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal being per se
illegal and erroneous, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondents submits that
this case based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution
has failed to connect the accused-respondents with the alleged
crime by way of any circumstances. The learned trial court has
considered each and every aspect of the matter while passing the
order of acquittal. The learned trial court has passed a detailed
and reasoned order of acquittal after proper appreciation of
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]
evidence available before it, which requires no interfere from this
Court.
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.
Having examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
we note that PW-1 Mahendra Singh is the complainant in this
case. He deposed that in the mid-night before the incident, he
went for dinner at the house of his uncle Moti Singh. After having
dinner, he was returning to home. On the way, he met with a
person, who was asking about Pintu. The said person was
Chhagan Singh, accused-respondent No.2. On the next morning,
Narpat Singh informed the said witness that dead-body of his
brother Pintu @ Jitendra way lying in the pearl millet field.
PW-2 Lila Devi, the mother of the deceased, was examined
and deposed that she did not partake in dinner at the residence of
Moti Singh. She further states that a young boy approached her
and informed that Pintu had left with his friend Praveen, but he
did not return. The following morning, Uday Singh informed her
that the dead-body of Pintu had been discovered lying in the field.
She expressed suspicion towards Praveen, the friend with whom
Pintu had gone before his demise. In her cross-examination, the
said witness deposed that in her Police statement, she stated that
she had a suspicion that the persons namely Hajari Singh, Mangal
Singh & Heera Singh, with whom she had a property dispute,
might have been involved in causing death.
PW-3 Laxman Singh, father of the deceased, deposed that he
had a suspicion that the accused-respondent Shanker Singh might
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]
have killed deceased Pintu for the reason that the girl, with whom
the marriage of Pintu was fixed, accused Shanker Singh wanted to
marry that girl. Accused Shanker Singh was annoyed because the
marriage of that girl was going to be solemnized with deceased
Pintu. He further expressed suspicion against the person with
whom property dispute has been going. In his cross-examination,
he deposed that his daughter-in-law found a love letter from the
pocket of deceased Pintu while washing the clothes. The said letter
was handed over to the Police, which was marked as Ex-3. The
date on the said letter was mentioned as 02.04.2001, which is
about one and half months earlier than the date of incident.
PW-7 Guman Singh deposed that whenever he tried to
arrange the engagement of his daughter Pushpa, accused Shanker
Singh and his family members threatened him that upon releasing
from jail, Shanker Singh would murder the person, which whom
Pushpa got engaged.
Whereas, PW-9 Pushpa in her cross-examiantion deposed
that Shanker Singh never said in the four years since his inquest
that he would kill Pintu.
PW-5, 8, 10 to 13, 21, 22, 24 & 28 were declared hostile.
On meticulous examination of the evidence of the aforesaid
witnesses, it appears that there is no connecting evidence
available on record against the accused-respondents. The
prosecution has also failed to prove the motive as well as evidence
of last seen. Further, the recovery of clothes was made at the
instance of the accused-respondents. In the FSL (Ex-33), no
grouping was come out only human origin blood was found. The
aforesaid witnesses deposed that they had a suspicion on the
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]
accused-respondents being involved in the murder of deceased
Pintu.
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
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(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]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”. …”
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.”
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]
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-respondents for offence under Sections
302, 302/34, 120-B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The
petitioner/State has 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.
With these observations, the present criminal appeal has no
substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
12-MS/-
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link