Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sarwan Ram vs State on 13 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 359/1991
1. Chuna Ram S/o Moda Ram by Caste Meghwal, R/o Rasisar,
2. Hazari Ram S/o Moda Ram, by Caste Meghwal,
3. Harsukh Ram S/o Ramu Ram, by Caste Meghwal,
Both residents of Napasar, District Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 249/1992
Sarwan Ram S/o Rewant Ram, by Caste Meghwal, R/o Napasar,
District Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik for Mr. S.K. Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
Reserved on : 30/07/2025
Pronounced on : 13/08/2025
(PER HON’BLE SANDEEP TANEJA, J.)
1. These criminal appeals lay challenge to the judgment and
order dated 05.10.1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/
ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) & Addl. Sessions Judge,
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB] (2 of 12) [CRLA-359/1991]
Bikaner (for short ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Sessions Case
No.51/90, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the
appellants for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34
IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
two months’ rigorous imprisonment.
2. During pendency of the appeals, appellant No.1-Chuna Ram
S/o Moda Ram (DB Criminal Appeal No.359/1991) died on
28.09.2000 and vide order dated 27.01.2023, appeal qua the said
appellant No.1-Chuna Ram S/o Moda Ram was ordered to be
abated. Furthermore, a report dated 29.07.2025 has been
received from S.H.O., Police Station Gangashahar, Bikaner, stating
that appellant No.2-Hazari Ram son of Moda Ram (DB Criminal
Appeal No.359/1991) has also died and, therefore, appeal qua him
stands abated as well. Accordingly, the present adjudication is
being made only to the extent of surviving accused-appellants,
namely Harsukh Ram and Sarwan Ram.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Badri Ram Saran (PW-9), the
then SHO, Police Station Gangashahar upon receipt of information
went to PBM Hospital, Bikaner on 05.12.1989, where deceased-
Natthu Ram was admitted in an unconscious condition. The SHO
recorded statement of Mangilal (PW-6), brother of the deceased.
4. Mangilal (PW-6) stated that his elder brother deceased-
Natthu Ram had a grocery shop and flour mill in the village. He
further stated that two days earlier, in the evening, around 7 to 8
PM, appellant-Chuna Ram came to Natthu Ram, who used to take
grocery items on credit from the shop of deceased. He stated that
as appellant-Chuna Ram used to come to the shop, therefore, he
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB] (3 of 12) [CRLA-359/1991]
knew him. He further stated that both appellant-Chuna Ram and
deceased consumed liquor infront of the shop where he was also
sitting. After sometime, appellant-Chuna Ram told Natthu Ram to
go towards the hut (jhuggi) as the meat was cooked there and
thereafter both appellant-Chuna Ram and Natthu Ram left the
place. He also stated that around 3 O’ clock in the night, Girdhari
Lal (PW-1) and Sadasukh (PW-2) came to him and said that they
have to go to Gada Jod Bhatta. On this, he asked them as to what
was the matter, then both of them told that after Natthu Ram
consumed liquor, appellants-Chuna Ram, Hazari and two others
gave beatings to him and kicked him, due to which he was lying
unconscious near appellant-Chuna Ram’s hut (jhuggi). He further
stated that thereafter he along with Sadasukh, Girdhari Lal and
Mangtu went to appellant-Chuna Ram’s hut (jhuggi) on a cart,
where his brother Natthu Ram was lying in unconscious condition.
He further stated that even after lots of efforts, Natthu Ram did
not speak and thereafter four of them put Natthu Ram on the cart
and brought him to their house and they waited till 12 O’ clock but
when Natthu Ram did not regain consciousness, then he and
Budha Ram brought Natthu Ram to the hospital at Bikaner for his
treatment. He further stated that his brother Natthu Ram was
unconscious due to internal injuries. He also stated that his
brother was beaten by appellants-Chuna Ram, Hazari and two
other unknown persons with kicks in order to kill him.
5. On the basis of the above statement of Mangilal (PW-6), an
FIR (Ex.P/23) was registered on 05.12.1989. Natthu Ram, who
was admitted in the hospital, died on 06.12.1989. The post-
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB] (4 of 12) [CRLA-359/1991]
mortem of the dead body was conducted on 06.12.1989 by
Dr. R.K. Gehlot (PW-7).
6. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for offences
under Sections 302, 365 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.1, Bikaner,
wherefrom the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions.
7. The charges were framed against the appellants for the
offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, which they
denied and sought trial.
8. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Statements of the
appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they
stated that they were not guilty and they had falsely been
implicated in the case. The learned Trial Court, after conclusion of
trial, found the appellants guilty for offences under Sections 302
read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment
with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo two months’ rigorous imprisonment.
9. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment 05.10.1991
passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellants have preferred
the present appeals.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
statements of the eye witnesses have been recorded after four
days of the incident and at the time of lodging FIR, they had no
information about the incident, and therefore, their statements
are liable to be disbelieved. It is further submitted that the FIR
was registered on the statement of Mangilal (PW-6), who stated
that the eye witnesses Girdhari Lal (PW-1) and Sadasukh (PW-2)
had informed him that appellant-Chuna Ram and Hazari along
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB] (5 of 12) [CRLA-359/1991]
with two other unknown persons had beaten the deceased. The
name of two of the accused persons were not known and no
identification parade was conducted by the prosecution. It is
further submitted that complainant Mangilal (PW-6) had given
evidence that the deceased left the house with appellant-Chuna
Ram only. It is also submitted that there was no enmity between
the appellants and the deceased and, therefore, there was no
motive on the part of the appellants to cause death of the
deceased and lastly, it was submitted that the FIR was lodged with
a delay of two days.
11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported
the judgment and order dated 05.10.1991 passed by the learned
Trial Court. He submitted that from the evidence of the eye
witnesses and from the post-mortem report, the guilt of the
appellants is proved beyond all reasonable doubts. He further
submitted that from the evidence of eye witnesses Girdhari Lal
(PW-1) and Sadasukh (PW-2), it is clear that appellant-Chuna
Ram used to purchase grocery items from the deceased on credit
and, therefore, he owed some money to Natthu Ram (deceased).
The deceased Natthu Ram was beaten by the appellants as he
used to ask for money from appellant-Chuna Ram. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that there were recoveries of sticks on the
instance of the appellants.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
13. In the present case, Girdhari Lal (PW-1) and Sadasukh (PW-
2) are the eye witnesses of the incident. Girdhari Lal (PW-1)
stated in his evidence that he knew all the appellants who used to
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB] (6 of 12) [CRLA-359/1991]
work as labourers on Bhatta. He further stated that when he along
with Sadasukh (PW-2) reached Bhatta, he saw that all the four
appellants were beating the deceased with sticks, kicks and
punches. When he asked the appellants as to why they were
beating the deceased, appellant-Chuna Ram said that deceased
used to ask for money on daily basis. He further stated in his
evidence that deceased informed him that initially the appellants
had beaten the deceased in the hut (jhuggi) of appellant-Chuna
Ram and thereafter they gave beatings to the deceased outside
the hut (jhuggi) of appellant-Shrawan. He further stated that he
got the deceased freed from the appellants. He also stated that
when he asked the deceased as to why the appellants were
beating him, then, the deceased also informed that he asked
money from appellant-Chuna Ram, therefore, he was beaten.
Similar statement was made by Sadasukh (PW-2), another eye
witness.
14. On the testimony of an eye witness, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in judgment dated 22.01.2025 passed in Baban Shankar
Daphal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR
2025 SC 599, held as under :
“32. It has been consistently laid down by this court that
once there is a version of eyewitness and the same
inspires confidence of the court it will be sufficient to
prove the guilt of the accused. A profitable reference can
be made to the decision of this Court in the case of
Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala and
Ors., wherein it was laid down that :
“17. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence
unless there are reasons to doubt it. The evidence of PW-
2 and PW-10 is unimpeachable. It is only in a case where
there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB] (7 of 12) [CRLA-359/1991]and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the
ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility
of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may
be disbelieved.”
33. Hence, a conviction can be based upon the
version put forth by the eyewitness and the medical
evidence must be considered only for the purpose
of corroboration of the ocular evidence.”
15. In the instant case, the testimony of both eye witnesses with
respect to the fact that deceased was beaten by all four appellants
with stick, kick and punches was consistent which was not shaken
in cross-examination. This is also relevant to mention here that
both eye witnesses stated that when they asked the appellants as
to why they were beating the deceased, Chuna Ram told them
that deceased used to ask for money.
16. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that
statements of both the eye witnesses are required to be
disbelieved because if the eye witnesses had informed the name
of all the appellants to Mangilal (PW-6), then as to why he named
only appellant-Chuna Ram and Hazari and two unknown persons
in his statement. The said contention is liable to be rejected as
both the eye witnesses have deposed that when they reached at
Bhatta, they saw all the appellants were beating the deceased
with sticks, kicks and punches. Therefore, when the appellants
were specifically named by the eye witnesses, there is no reason
to disbelieve their testimony merely on the ground that Mangilal
(PW-6) did not name two of the appellants in the FIR. Moreover,
Mangilal also in his evidence stated that he had given the name of
all the appellants during his statement. The case of the
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB] (8 of 12) [CRLA-359/1991]
prosecution is also supported by the evidence of Ram Lal (PW-5)
who stated that at 4 AM (between 03.12.1989 and 04.12.1989) in
the night all the appellants came to his house and told him that
they had beaten the deceased as he used to ask for money on
daily basis. From the evidence of eye witnesses Girdhari Lal (PW-
1) and Sadasukh (PW-2) together with the evidence of Ramlal
(PW-5) and Mangilal (PW-6), it is established beyond all
reasonable doubts that the offence has been committed by the
appellants. All the appellants were named by Girdhari Lal (PW-1),
Sadasukh (PW-2), Ramlal (PW-5) and Mangilal (PW-6) and,
therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that
accused Harsukh Ram and Sharwan Ram were not named in the
FIR, lacks merit.
17. The deceased received 32 injuries, out of which, 30 external
injuries were simple in nature. However, the deceased sustained
two internal injuries. One on the parietotemporal part and nearby
occipital part on the left side of head, which is mentioned as
Injury No.31 in the post-mortem report. Another injury was
extravasation of clotted blood within the scalp tissue on right
fronto-perietal region, which was treated as injury No.32. From
the post-mortem report, it is clear that both the injuries Nos.31
and 32 are head injuries and they are sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the
cross-examination, Dr. R.K. Gehlot (PW-7) has admitted that a
person may receive injury Nos.31 and 32 if he falls on stone/brick,
therefore, on the basis of port-mortem report, it cannot be
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB] (9 of 12) [CRLA-359/1991]
conclusively held that injury Nos.31 and 32 were sustained by the
deceased due to beating by the appellants.
18.1. We are not impressed with the said contention of learned
counsel for the appellants. The evidences of the eye witnesses
along with post-mortem report establish that the injury Nos.31
and 32 were caused by the appellants only, resulting into the
death of the deceased.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended
that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part
of the appellants for committing offence. This contention is also
liable to be rejected for the reasons that the eye witnesses have
specifically stated in their evidence that when they asked the
appellants as to why they were beating the deceased, appellant-
Chuna Ram said that he used to ask him for money on daily basis.
This as held earlier is supported by the statement of Ram Lal
(PW-5).
19.1. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, motive on the
part of the appellants was clear to cause injuries to Natthu Ram
with intention to cause death as he used to ask for money due to
him from appellant Chuna Ram.
19.2. Though, as stated above, motive on the part of appellants
was clear, however, it is also a well settled principle that motive is
relevant for consideration only in cases of circumstantial evidence,
however, when there is direct/eye witness, the motive is
irrelevant.
19.3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 15 SCC 701 held that
motive can be an important aspect in the case based on
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB] (10 of 12) [CRLA-359/1991]
circumstantial evidence, whereas in a case based on direct
evidence, motive would not be that relevant. The relevant part of
the said judgment is reproduced as under :-
“64. The next contention raised on behalf of the
appellants is that the motive attributed by the
prosecution is a very weak motive. It is
submitted that the motive attributed is on
account of political enmity due to elections which
were held two-and-a-half years prior to the date
of incident. The motive is specifically brought on
record in the evidence of Lokendra (PW 1) and
Irshad Khan (PW 7). Harpal Singh (PW 10) also
deposed about the enmity between the families
of Ishwar and Ram Kishan. In any case, the
present case is a case of direct evidence. It is a
settled law that though motive could be an
important aspect in a case based on
circumstantial evidence, in the case of direct
evidence, the motive would not be that relevant.
65. In this respect, we may gainfully refer to
the judgment of this Court in State of A.P. v.
Bogam Chandraiah, which reads thus :
“11…. Another failing in the judgment
is that the High Court has held that the
prosecution has failed to prove
adequate motive for the commission of
the offence without bearing in mind the
well settled rule that when there is
direct evidence of an acceptable nature
regarding the commission of an offence
the question of motive cannot loom
large in the mind of the court.”
66. This Court in Darbara Singh v. State of
Punjab, has observed thus :
“15. So far as the issue of motive is
concerned, it is a settled legal
proposition that motive has great
significance in a case involving
circumstantial evidence, but where(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB] (11 of 12) [CRLA-359/1991]direct evidence is available, which is
worth relying upon, motive loses its
significance.”
67. Again in Subodh Nath v. State of Tripura,
this Court has observed thus :
“16. … The learned counsel for the
appellants is right that the prosecution
has not been able to establish the motive
of Appellant to kill the deceased but as
there is direct evidence of the accused
having committed the offence, motive
becomes irrelevant. Motive becomes
relevant as an additional circumstance in
a case where the prosecution seeks to
prove the guilt by circumstantial
evidence only.”
19.4. Present is a case based on evidence of eye witnesses and
hence for this reason also, the contention of learned counsel for
the appellants that there was lack of motive, is not a pertinent
factor on account of there being direct ocular evidence.
20. Another contention raised by learned counsel for the
appellants is that the FIR was lodged with a delay of two days. In
the instant case, the incident took place between 3 to 4 AM in the
intervening night of 03.12.1989 and 04.12.1989. Since deceased-
Nathhu Ram was unconscious, he was brought to the house but as
he did not regain consciousness, he was admitted in the hospital
on the next day of the incident and as the family members of the
deceased were engaged in his treatment, the FIR came to be
registered on 05.12.1989.
20.1. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, firstly it
cannot be said that there is such delay in lodging FIR, which is
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34654-DB] (12 of 12) [CRLA-359/1991]
fatal to the case of the prosecution, secondly delay of one and half
day is duly explained by the circumstances prevailing at that time,
as the family members were busy in looking after and treatment
of the deceased.
21. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.1991 passed
by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the present criminal
appeals are dismissed. The surviving appellants are on bail; their
bail bonds stand cancelled. The surviving appellants are directed
to be taken into custody forthwith, to be sent to the concerned Jail
to serve out the remaining part of their sentences, as awarded to
them by the learned Trial Court.
22. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court
forthwith to ensure that the surviving appellants undergo the
remaining part of their sentence.
(SANDEEP TANEJA), J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
ms rathore
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:44:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)