Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Jairam Das Chela Ramanand Swami vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.196/2020
Jairam Das Chela Ramanand Swami, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Dadu Palka Bhairana Dham Tan Bichun, Police Station Phulera,
District Jaipur. (Presently Confined At Dausa Jail)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Anurag Shukla, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor.
Mr.Khem Singh Rajawat, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
JUDGMENT
RESERVED ON :: :: :: 12/08/2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: :: :: 20/08/2025
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:-
This appeal is preferred by Jairam Das Chela
Ramanand Swami (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’)
against the judgment dated 19.02.2020 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur in
Sessions Case No.33/2015 convicting the appellant under
Sections 307 & 302 IPC and Section 3/5 of the Arms Act,
1959. Vide order of even date, the appellant was ordered to
undergo sentence:-
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (2 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
Name of Accused- Convicted under Punishment
Appellant Sections
Jairam Das Chela 307 IPC Ten years rigorous
imprisonment and to
Ramanand Swami pay fine of Rs.15,000/-.
In default of payment of
fine to undergone two
months rigorous
imprisonment
302 IPC Life imprisonment and
to pay fine of
Rs.25,000/-
In default of payment of
fine to undergone four
months rigorous
imprisonment
3/25 of the Arms Act Three years rigorous
imprisonment and to
pay fine of 5,000/-
In default of payment of
fine to undergo one
month rigorous
imprisonment
2. The facts as projected by the prosecution are that
on 19.05.2015 statement of Ramlaldas Maharaj (hereinafter
referred to as ‘deceased’) was recorded wherein, it was
stated that the appellant fired with a country made pistol
(katta) but it misfired. The accused came again with katta
and inflicted fire arm injury on the chest of the deceased.
After hearing the screams Jagdish Kumawat, Danaram Gurjar
and Bhagwandas Swami reached the spot and took the
deceased to Government Hospital, Phulera from where he
was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. During treatment
deceased succumbed to injuries on 21.05.2015. The
postmortem was conducted and cause of death was shock, as
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (3 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
a result of ante mortem peritonitis which was due to injury
No.1, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
The injury No.1 was gun shot punctured lacerated wound of
size 1 x 1 cm on lower part of sternum in center. Dissection
revealed underlying hematoma with a track directed
downwards and laterally upto anterior wall of stomach. After
filing of charge-sheet, the charges were framed against the
appellant for offences under Sections 307, 302, 120B IPC and
3/25 of the Arms Act and charges against other co-accused
Sunil Kumar and Deva @ Thawar were framed for offences
under Sections 302 read-with Section 34 and 120B IPC.
3. The prosecution examined twenty eight witnesses
and exhibited forty seven documents to prove the case. In
statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, the appellant
took defence of alibi and stated it to be a case of false
implication. In defence, three witnesses were examined and
eleven documents were exhibited. The trial court after
considering the facts and appreciating the evidence adduced,
acquitted Sunil Kumar S/o Ramsharan and Deva @ Thawar
S/o Late Hajarilal but convicted the appellant. Hence, the
present appeal.
4. It is contended that as per the deposition of PW-15
Dr. Rahul Mittal of Government Hospital, Phulera the condition
of the deceased was critical and was not even in a position of
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (4 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
taking thumb impression. On reaching the SMS hospital,
Jaipur the parchabayan was recorded at 11:50 PM and
thereafter deceased was operated at midnight 12:00 O’ clock.
The contents of the parchabayan are argued to be unreliable
as the deceased was not medically fit for recording of the
statement. It is further argued that PW-19 Satyanarayan had
not recorded the statement in his own hand.
4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the
parchabayan/statement is a manipulated document. Not only
the statement bears signature of deceased but also the police
proceedings done at 4:30 AM of 20.05.2015 whereas the
deceased underwent surgery at 12:00 O’ clock in the
intervening night of 19.05.2015. The variation in
parchabayan and statements of PW-28 Investigating Officer
(‘IO’) and PW-19 Satyanarayan, ASI are relied upon to
contend that there are loopholes in the prosecution story as
to who took the deceased to the Government Hospital at
Phulera and thereafter to the SMS hospital, Jaipur.
4.2. It is submitted that there is a delay in lodging the
FIR. Contention is that in the cross examination recovery
witness PW-19 Satyanarayan, ASI stated that the katta was
recovered from the almirah, lock of which was opened by the
appellant, however, there is no reference to the recovery of
the keys.
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (5 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
4.3. Submission is that the appellant on the date of
incident was attending the marriage ceremony of daughter of
aunt of DW-1 Naresh Kumar Kumawat and the defence was
wrongly rejected.
5. Per contra out of three eye witnesses two had seen
the appellant shooting the deceased and third one had seen
the appellant running with the katta in his hand. It is averred
that the contents of the parchabayan of the deceased is in
consonance with the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.
5.1 It is argued that the katta, empty shell and live
cartridge were recovered at the instance of the appellant
from his room. Forensic Science Laboratory reports clearly
reflect that the weapon recovered was serviceable and an
empty shell 8mm K.F. cartridge and the soft nose copper
jacketed bullet were fired from the recovered katta.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
7. On 19.05.2015 the parchabayan of the deceased
was recorded, wherein it was stated that the appellant fired
at the chest of the deceased with a katta. The deceased was
taken to the Government Hospital, Phulera by Jagdish
Kumawat, Danaram Gurjar and Bhagwandas Swami in a jeep.
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (6 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
8. PW-15 Dr. Rahul Mittal Medical Officer deposed that
deceased was brought to the Government Hospital, Phulera
and there were two puncture injuries to the deceased. The
first was gunshot puncture injury lacerated wound of size
1 x 1 cm on lower part of sternum in center and the second
puncture injury lacerated wound of size 0.7 x 0.7 cm on the
left side of the lower back region. Further that considering
the condition, the deceased was referred to the SMS Hospital,
Jaipur.
9. PW-25 Dr. Darpan attended the deceased in Trauma
Center of SMS Hospital, Jaipur and deposed that deceased
had sustained two injuries from a gunshot and it was certified
by him that the deceased was fit for recording of the
statement.
10. PW-27 Dr. Mohit Kumar Jain, Surgeon of SMS
Hospital, Jaipur stated that the deceased was taken to the
operation theater at 12:00 AM on 20.05.2015 and gave the
details of damage caused by the bullet.
11. PW-1 Bhagwandas testified to have seen appellant
after the incident running with katta and the deceased told
that the appellant shot him. It was stated that Jagdish,
Dhadu, Bhagwan Gurjar and Poorandas Ji Maharaj took the
deceased to the hospital. PW-1 was also witness to the
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (7 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
recovery memo of the blood stained stone, marble, blood
stained bullet and clothes of the deceased.
12. PW-2 Jagdish Kumawat testified that he saw the
appellant shooting the deceased with katta and fleeing the spot
from the passage towards khaakh chowk along-with the
weapon. It was reiterated that PW-2 along-with PW-3 Danaram
@ Dhadu Gurjar and PW-6 Bhagwan Gurjar took the deceased
to the hospital.
13. PW-3 Danaram stated that he witnessed the
appellant shooting the deceased when the deceased was having
food sitting on the floor. Further that he along with PW-1 and
PW-2 took deceased to the Government Hospital, Phulera.
14. PW-5 Ramchandra, PW-8 Mohanlal Kumawat,
PW-10 Subhash, PW-11 Rajeshdas Swami and PW-18
Kailashchand are formal witnesses. PW-6 Bhagwan Gurjar
supported the presence of Danaram Gurjar, Jagdish and
Bhagwandas on the spot at time of incident. PW-14 Premdas
Swami deposed that he had seen the appellant on
17.05.2015 carrying a weapon. PW-12 Dr. Dhruv Singh was
member of the medical board and conducted postmortem.
15. On 20.05.2015 the appellant was arrested and on
22.05.2015 at the instance of the appellant country made
pistol was recovered from almirah in his room. The recovery
memo (Ex.P.6) has two witnesses Bhagwandas Swami and
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (8 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
Prakash Singh. Ex.P.-19 is recovery memo whereby at the
instance of appellant, one live cartridge 8mm K.F. and one
empty shell marked as ‘F’ hidden under the bedding were
recovered from the room of the appellant. From the spot of
the incident a blood stained used bullet marked as ‘C’ was
recovered in the presence of Bhagwandas and Danaram @
Dhadu Gujjar, fard is marked as Ex.P.3.
16. It would be relevant to quote the operative portion
of ballistic report:-
Description of Articles
Packet ‘C’ contained– One 8mm/.315″ soft nose
copper jacketted bullet, marked ‘B/1’.
Packet ‘E’ contained– One 8mm/.315″ country
made pistol, marked ‘W/1’.
Packet ‘F’ contained–
(i) One 8 MM K.F. cartridge, marked ‘L/1’
(ii) One 8 MM K.F. cartridge case, marked ‘C/1’
Packet ‘Unmarked (MO)’ in clots (Liquid blood)
as per M.O.Note:- Two sealed packets ‘C’ & ‘Unmarked
(M.O.)’ were first sent to Serology, Division for
blood examination. After blood examination
exhibits from packets ‘C’ & ‘Unmarked’ (M.O.)
were received back for ballistic examination.
Result of Examinations
1. One 8mm/.315 country made pistol (W/1)
from packet ‘E’ is a serviceable firearm.
2. The chemical examination of barrel residue
indicates that submitted 8mm/.315″ country
made Pistol (W/1) had been fired. However, the
definite time of its last fire could not be
ascertained.
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (9 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
3. Based on comparison microscopic
examination it is the opinion that:-
(i) One 8MM K.F. cartridge case (C/1) from
packet ‘F’ has been fired from submitted
8mm/.315″ country made pistol (W/1) from
packet ‘E’.
(ii) One 8mm/.315″ soft nose copper jacketted
bullet (B/1) from packet ‘C’ has been fired from
submitted 8mm/.315″ country made pistol
(W/1) from packet ‘E’.
4. On the chemical examination of exhibit from
packet ‘Unmarked (M.O.), no gun shot residue
or residues of powder charge could be detected.
5. One 8 MM K.F. cartridge (L/1) from packet ‘F’
is a fireworth ammunition and it was also test
fired from submitted 8mm/.315″ country made
pistol (W/1) from packet ‘E’ in the laboratory.”
17. Ballistic report clearly reveals that the empty shell
and bullet were fired from the recovered katta.
18. The recovery memos Ex.P.3, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.19 are
for recovery of bullet, katta, empty shell and live cartridge
respectively. Further Ex.P.-45 & Ex.P.-46 FSL reports along-
with deposition of eye witness PW-1 to PW-3 proved the
possession and use of katta by the appellant.
19. The IO supported the case of the prosecution and
deposed about receiving information and proceedings
initiated thereafter. The procedure followed for recovery of
the blood stained bullet, stone and marble from the spot of
the incident and the recovery of katta, empty shell and live
cartridge made at the instance of the appellant was given in
detail.
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (10 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
20. The appellant took defence of alibi. DW-1 Naresh
Kumar Kumawat was examined to prove that on 19.05.2015
the appellant around 06:30 PM had come along-with
Ramanand Ji Maharaj at the marriage of daughter of aunt of
DW-1. Ramanand Ji Maharaj came in a vehicle driven by the
appellant and stayed there for over two hours. Further that
photographs of the marriage ceremony were taken. Law is
settled that onus to substantiate defence of alibi is on
accused. Reference in this regard be made to the decision of
the Supreme Court in Binay Kumar Singh Vs. State of
Bihar reported in [(1997)1 SCC 283] wherein the Court
held that:-
“23………The plea of the accused in such cases
need be considered only when the burden has
been discharged by the prosecution
satisfactorily. But once the prosecution
succeeds in discharging the burden it is
incumbent on the accused, who adopts the
plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty
so as to exclude the possibility of his presence
at the place of occurrence. When the presence
of the accused at the scene of occurrence has
been established satisfactorily by the
prosecution through reliable evidence,
normally the court would be slow to believe
any counter-evidence to the effect that he was
elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But
if the evidence adduced by the accused is of
such a quality and of such a standard that the
court may entertain some reasonable doubt
regarding his presence at the scene when the
occurrence took place, the accused would, no
doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that
reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would
be a sound proposition to be laid down that in(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (11 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]such circumstances, the burden on the
accused is rather heavy.”
21. In case defence of alibi is found to be false, it
strengthens the circumstances against the accused.
Reference in this regard be made to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Ashok Verma Vs. State of Chattisgarh
reported in [2024 INSC 1011] wherein the Court held that:-
“14. The effect of false plea of alibi was
considered by this Court in Babudas v.
State of M.P. and in G. Parshwanath v.
State of Karnataka. In G. Parshwanath’s
case, this Court held that when the
accused gave a false plea that he was
not present on the spot, his statement
would be regarded as additional
circumstance against him strengthening
the chain of circumstances already found
firm.”
22. The appellant failed to substantiate the defence of
alibi. The witness DW-1 Naresh Kumar stated that the
appellant along-with Ramanand Das ji Maharaj had come to
attend the marriage of daughter of his aunt. Ramanand Das ji
Maharaj was important witness but was not examined. DW-1
was neither remembering the registration number of the
scooty on which he went to receive Maharaj nor that of the
vehicle driven by the appellant in which Ramanand Das had
come. Further no photographs clicked in marriage showing
presence of appellant were produced inspite of the deposition
that the appellant remained there for more than two hours,
hence, DW-1 was not reliable witness. On the other hand
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (12 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
overwhelming evidence of contents of parchabayan, the
deposition of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3, IO and both the doctors
PW-15 Dr. Rahul Mittal and PW-25 Dr. Darpan have supported
the case of the prosecution. The evidence to prove the plea of
alibi is not worth acceptance to doubt the presence of the
appellant at the time of incident.
23. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant
that contents of the parchabayan are not reliable as the
deceased was not medically fit for giving the statement, is
noted to be rejected. It is not disputed that before recording
of the statement, Dr. Darpan, SMS Hospital, Jaipur had given
a certificate (Ex.P.22) of fitness of deceased for recording
statement and Dr.Darpan was examined as PW-25 and he
withstood cross-examination.
24. The argument that at Government Hospital, Phulera
condition of the deceased was such that even his thumb print
could not be taken and the condition improved on reaching
SMS Hospital, Jaipur to extent that statement was recorded
need not be dilated upon once the doctor had certified that
the deceased was fit for recording of the statement.
25. The submission that parchabayan is a manipulated
document as there are signatures not only on the statement
but also on the police proceedings recorded at 4:30 AM on
20.05.2015 whereas the deceased had undergone surgery at
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (13 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
12:00 AM on 20.05.2015, does not enhance the case of the
appellant. No suggestion in this regard was put to doctors
deposing in trial. There is nothing on record to show exact
time the surgery took and time taken by the deceased in
regaining consciousness after the surgery.
26. The contention by learned counsel for the appellant
that there is variation in contents of the parchabayan, the
statement of PW-19 Satyanarayan, ASI and the IO, viz-a-viz,
the person who had taken the deceased to the Govt. Hospital,
Phulera and thereafter to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur shall not
prove fatal to the story of the prosecution, moreover with the
passage of time minor discrepancies are bound to come.
27. Another aspect to be considered is that this
variation is not denting the story of the prosecution in view of
the statement of three eye witnesses and the recoveries
made at the instance of the appellant.
28. The contention raised that PW-19 Satyanarayan
had not recorded the statement in his own hand, has no
merit. It is not disputed that the statement was recorded in
the presence of Satyanarayan and bears his signature. PW-19
asserted that on his instructions the statement of deceased
was recorded by Constable Ramchandra Belt No.719.
29. The objections that there is a delay in lodging the
FIR, lacks merit. The incident is about 07:45 PM on
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (14 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
19.05.2015. The parchabayan was recorded at 11:50 PM on
19.05.2015, the police proceedings were recorded at 04:30
AM on 20.05.2015 and FIR was lodged at 06:15 AM on
20.05.2015.
30. The recovery of katta, empty shell and live
cartridge, on disclosure made under Section 27 of Indian
Evidence Act and after following the procedure as per law
cannot be doubted merely for the reason that on suggestion
made during cross examination PW-19 Satyanarayan had not
given details of recovery of keys of almirah. The credibility of
recoveries is fortified by the fact that:- (i) the disclosure of
statements are signed by the appellant; and (ii) recovery
memos and site plan of recovery are not only signed by the
appellant but also by IO and two witnesses.
31. The parchabayan of the deceased was recorded after
the doctor certified that deceased was fit for recording of the
statement and it was stated that the appellant had shot him
with a katta. PW-1 Bhagwan Das had seen appellant running
from the spot with katta in his hand and deceased had told
Bhagwan Das that appellant had shot him. PW-2 Jagdish
Kumawat and PW-3 Danaram were eye witnesses and
deposed to have been seen the appellant shooting the
deceased with katta and identified the appellant in court. PW-
15 Dr. Rahul Mittal and PW-25 Dr. Darpan testified that the
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31430-DB] (15 of 15) [CRLAD-196/2020]
deceased had suffered injuries by gunshot. There was
blackening around the injury caused by gunshot. The katta,
empty shell and live cartridge were recovered at instance of
the appellant from his room. The blood stained bullet with
soft nose copper head was recovered from the spot. The FSL
report Ex P-46 is to the effect that stain on the bullet was of
human blood; the katta was in working condition; and the
empty shell and bullet were fired form the recovered katta.
The cause of the death as per the PMR EX P-18 was shock as
result of gunshot injury, sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course. It is mentioned that on dissection a path was found
between injury on the chest and at lower back. The chest
wound was the entry of the bullet and exit was from injury on
side of lower back. The appellant failed to prove alibi. The
prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt
32. The well reasoned judgment of conviction passed after
appreciating the evidence and considering the facts suffers
from no factual or legal error calling for interference in
appeal. The appeal is dismissed and judgment of conviction
and order of sentence are upheld.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Himanshu Soni/Riya
Reportable:- Yes
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 10:05:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)