Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Lalchand vs State on 16 June, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 228/2019
1. Lalchand S/o Chhoturam, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste
Kumhar, R/o Ward No. 44, Suresiya, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Presently Lodged At District Jail
Bikaner).
2. Gulveer S/o Lalchand, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste
Kumhar, R/o Ward No. 44, Suresiya, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Presently Lodged At District Jail
Bikaner).
3. Palaram S/o Lalchand, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste
Kumhar, R/o Ward No. 44, Suresiya, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Presently Lodged At District Jail
Bikaner).
4. Vinod S/o Lalchand, Aged About 21 Years, By Caste
Kumhar, R/o Ward No. 44, Suresiya, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Presently Lodged At District Jail
Bikaner).
----Appellants
Versus
State, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.S. Chouhdary, Sr. Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary &
Ms. Sampati Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
Mr. Rakesh Matoria
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
Reserved on 12/05/2025
Pronounced on 16/06/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (2 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has
been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2019 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case
No.62/2016 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Lalchand and Ors.), whereby
the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as
under:
Accused-appellant: Palaram
Conviction u/s. Sentence & Fine In Default of
payment of fine
further undergo
302 of I.P.C. Life Imprisonment One Year’s additional
alongwith Fine of simple imprisonment
Rs.20,000/-
323 of I.P.C. Six Month's S.I., Fifteen days additional
alongwith Fine of simple imprisonment
Rs.1000/-
3(1)(R)(S) of One Year's S.I., One month's additional
SC/ST (Prevention of alongwith Fine of simple imprisonment
Atrocities) Act Rs.5000/-
Accused-appellants: Lalchand, Gulveer, Vinod
Conviction u/s. Sentence & Fine In Default of
payment of fine
further undergo
302/34 of I.P.C. Life Imprisonment One Year’s additional
alongwith Fine of simple imprisonment
Rs.20,000/-
323 of I.P.C. Six Month's S.I., Fifteen days additional
alongwith Fine of simple imprisonment
Rs.1000/-
3(1)(R)(S) of One Year's S.I., One month's additional
SC/ST (Prevention of alongwith Fine of simple imprisonment
Atrocities) Act Rs.5000/-
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (3 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court are that
one Jagveer Kaur (Complainant and P.W.1), on 20.08.2016 while
being admitted in trauma ward of Government Hospital,
Hanumangarh, gave a Parcha Bayan in the presence of a Police
Officer, wherein she stated that 20-25 days ago she had a dispute
with her neighbors accused-appellant Lalchand and others with
respect to water drainage channel. It was also stated that because
of the said dispute cases were also registered, and because of the
said reason the accused-appellant Lalchand and his family
members held enmity against the complainant, her husband and
her family.
2.1. It was further stated in the said Parcha Bayan that on the
day of incident, when the husband of complainant (Balvinder
Singh @Babbu) was returning from work, at around 8:30 p.m.,
the accused appellants Lalchand, Palaram, Gulveer and Vinod, on
sight of Balvinder Singh on common street of Ward Number 44,
stopped and attacked him with the intention of murdering him,
using Lathis and Kaapa. It was alleged that accused-appellant
Palaram had the Kaapa in his hand by which he caused the
injuries on the head and face of Balvinder Singh, and when the
complainant intervened to save her husband (Balvinder Singh), all
the accused appellants gave beatings to both, complainant and
her husband, due to which even complainant sustained injuries. It
was further alleged that the accused-appellants also hurled abuses
with respect to their caste, and said that they will burn their
houses and throw them outside the colony. It was further stated
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (4 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
that one Paramjeet Singh intervened and saved them and one
Parmanand took them to hospital in his car.
2.2. On the basis of the aforesaid information, an FIR bearing
No.401/2016 was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh, for
the offence under Sections 307, 323, 341 read with Section 34
IPC, the police started investigation in the matter. However, before
conclusion of the investigation, Balvinder Singh succumbed to the
injuries during the treatment, and thus, after completion of the
investigation, a charge-sheet under section 302, 307, 341, 323
read with section 34 IPC, and section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was
submitted against accused-appellants before the learned Trial
Court, for the necessary trial.
2.3. During the course of trial, the statements of 18 witnesses
(P.W. 1 to P.W. 18) were recorded, and documents (Ex.P.1 to 46)
were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence, document
(Ex.D.1 to 4) were exhibited, for examination; whereafter, the
accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in
which they pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal
case in question.
2.4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court,
convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as above, vide
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
25.07.2019; against which, the present appeal has been preferred
by the accused-appellants.
3. Mr. J.S. Chouhdary, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.
Pradeep Choudhary and Ms. Sampati Choudhary, appearing for the
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (5 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
accused-appellants submitted that the learned Trial Court has not
appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective, and
there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that
Jagveer Kaur (complainant and P.W.1) in the Parcha Bayan stated
that the accused-appellant Palaram had a Kaapa which he used to
inflict the injuries to her and the deceased. However, it was
contended that, in the testimony before the Court P.W.1 stated
that the same accused-appellant yielded an Kulhadi as a weapon.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the statement
of Jagveer Kaur (P.W.1) cannot be believed to be true as they are
not supported by any other witnesses. Furthermore, it was
submitted that the said witness is an interested witness because
she is the wife of the deceased. It was submitted that the
relative, interested or inimical witnesses should not be believed as
truthful witnesses, and the veracity of the said categories of
witnesses should be examined very cautiously and carefully.
3.2. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the genesis of the
prosecution’s story is doubtful, as prosecution witnesses P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.4, and P.W. 6 have alleged that number of individuals
gathered at the spot at the time of incident, and despite the
presence of these independent witnesses at the time of incident,
none of them were presented as witnesses during the course of
trial. It was contended that such non-examination of independent
witnesses reflected upon the fact that the whole prosecution story
is dubious and concocted. Moreover, it was submitted that one
Iktar Singh and one Gurudev Singh were eyewitnesses to the
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (6 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
alleged incident, as per the prosecution, however, they were also
not examined as prosecution witnesses.
3.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the recovery
of weapons from the accused-appellants had not proved anything
as they were not supported by FSL report (Ex.P.46) in order to
establish their connection with the alleged incident. It was
submitted that as per the FSL report, out of the recovered
weapons, the origin of the blood, i.e., if the blood detected is of
human origin or not, found on the Lathee recovered from accused-
appellant Vinod could not be traced, and even though the blood
found on Kulhadi recovered from accused-appellant Palaram and
Danda recovered from accused-appellant Gulveer was of human
orgin it could not be concluded that the blood was of the deceased
because the blood group of the blood found on the said weapons
could not determined. It was further submitted that the danda
recovered from accused-appellant Lalchand (Ex.P.22) had the
traces of blood of the blood group “A”, however, the blood group of
accused-appellant Lalchand was not examined to find out if the
blood was his or not. Thus, it was submitted that the said infirmity
showed recovery of weapon was false.
3.4. Moreover, it was submitted that the said weapons were
recovered from a jointly possessed house, thus, the said recovery
cannot be relied on to establish the guilt of the accused-
appellants. On the aspect of recovered weapons, it was also
submitted that it was not sufficiently established that the said
weapons were actually the ones used to cause the injuries as
alleged by the prosecution. It was contended that the injury report
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (7 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
of the deceased (Ex.P.39) and Jagveer Kaur (Ex.P.41), and the
postmortem report (EX.P.45) did not establish the use of the said
weapons.
3.5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the place of
incident in question of the alleged offence is disputed as P.W.1 in
her testimony said that when she reached in front of the house of
one Sukhveer Puniya, she saw that in front of the door of the said
house the accused-appellant Palaram had a Kulhadi in his hand,
and accused-appellants Lalchand, Gulveer and Vinod had Lathis
however, no such description of place was given in the Parcha
Bayan by the P.W.1. Moreover, even the testimonies of P.W.4 and
P.W. 6 did not mention any place of incident.
3.6. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the prosecution
had also failed to prove that accused-appellants had any intention
to murder the deceased. It was submitted that prosecution had
failed to prove any enmity between the accused appellants, and
the complainant & her family. It was submitted that as per the
testimony of P.W.1. a compromise was entered into between the
accused-appellants and the family of the complainant. Moreover,
Dr. Sankar Lal Soni (P.W.14) stated in his testimony that the
injuries found on the body of Jagveer Kaur (P.W.1) were simple in
nature, thus, it was contended that there was no intention to
murder.
3.7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the sole
cause of death of Balvinder Singh(deceased) was not the injuries,
rather the cause of death was lack of proper treatment on time. It
was submitted that the time of death of Balvinder Singh is 10 days
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (8 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
after the alleged incident, shows that the death cannot be
attributed to the injuries suffered by the deceased, and the death
was due to the medical complications.
3.8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the entirety of
the evidence produced by the prosecution did not reflect that
there was a common intention between the accused-appellants to
murder the deceased, and that the accused appellants acted in
furtherance of that common intention. Thus, it was contended that
section 34 IPC cannot be invoked in the case at hand.
3.9. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that as per the case
of prosecution, the injury which caused the death of deceased was
inflicted by accused-appellant Palaram, and that too without
intention to cause such injury. Thus, it was contended that no
offence under section 302 IPC had been made out, rather at most
offence under section 304 Part II IPC was made out only against
the accused-appellant Palaram and none others.
3.10. Learned Senior Counsel in support of such submission relied
on the following Judgments:
(i) Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2
SCC 808
(ii) Pankaj vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 16 SCC 192
(iii) Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharastra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India
(iv) Harilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal
Appeal Nos. 2216-2217 of 2011 decided on 05.09.2023
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India)
(v) State of Rajasthan vs. Shri Teja Singh (2001) 3
SCC 147(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (9 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
(vi) Bodh Raj @ Bodha and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir (2002) 7 SCC 334
(vii) Balu @ Bal Subramaniam and Anr. vs. State (U.T. of
Pondicherry) (2016) 15 SCC 471
(viii) Ganga Dass @ Godha vs State of Haryana (Criminal
Appeal No. 696 of 1993 decided on 02.11.1993 by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India)
(ix) Harbeer Singh vs Sheeshpal & ors. (2016) 16 SCC
418
(x) Munna Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 18 SCC
661
(xi) Sanjay vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal
No. 11 of 2016 decided on 06.01.2016 by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India)
(xii) Maniben vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 8 SCC 796
(xiii) B.N. Kavatakar vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal
Appeal No. 536 of 1979 decided on 12.05.1993 by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India )
(xiv) Sharvan Ram Nayak vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B.
Criminal Appelal No. 1150.2015 decided on 15.02.2019
by this Hon’ble Court)
(xv) Lal Chand Nagar vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 385/2015 decided on 03.08.2018 by
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench)
4. Per Contra, Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, learned Public Prosecutor
and Mr. Rakesh Matoria, learned counsel for the complainant,
opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-
appellants and submitted that as per the testimony Jagveer Kaur
(P.W.1.) there was animosity between her family and the family of
accused appellants, and consequently cases were also registered.
It was submitted that on the day of incident at around 8:30 p.m.
when the accused-appellants saw the deceased they attacked him.
Moreover, it was submitted that it was admitted position on record
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (10 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
that there was a dispute of water drainage channel between the
accused and the complainant party. Thus, it was contended that
the accused had clear motive to commit the crime.
4.1. It was further submitted that P.W.1. was an eyewitness to the
entire incident, and she had clearly stated that accused-appellant
Palaram was yielding a Kulhadi and the accused-appellants had
lathis with which they committed the crime, and when she
intervened to save the deceased, she was also attacked
whereupon caste based abuses were hurled against her. It was
submitted that the said witness had testified that her husband
(deceased) received multiple injuries including one on the right
side of the head, and thus he became unconscious, and because
of the said injuries the deceased had to be admitted in hospital for
the treatment during which the deceased passed away. It was
further submitted that P.W.1 also suffered injuries in the incident
and thus was admitted to hospital where she gave a Parcha
Bayan, wherein she narrated the entire incident to the police
officer. It was brought to the notice of this court that P.W.1 had
actually told the police officer that the accused appellant Palaram
attacked with a Kulhadi, however the said officer by mistake wrote
Kaapa as the weapon used in the attack, and the said fact was
believed by the learned Trial Court. It was submitted that the
P.W.1 had been consistent in the FIR, the Parcha Bayan and Court
statements.
4.2. It was further submitted that Paramjeet (P.W.4) had clearly
stated in his testimony that he reached the spot after the incident,
and he heard commotion there. It was submitted that the said
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (11 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
witnesses has stated that he saw Balvinder Singh (deceased) in
critical condition and his wife (P.W.1) was screaming and wailing
that the accused appellants caused the injuries with Kulhadi, and
that P.W.1 specifically named the accused-appellants for the
beatings. It was submitted that P.W.4 stated that, thereafter they
went to the hospital. It was further submitted that Major Singh
(P.W.5) the father of the deceased also deposed that he received
phone call from his daughter in law (P.W.1) that accused
appellants have committed the crime, and asked him to come to
the hospital.
4.3. It was further submitted that Paramanand (P.W.6) was an
eyewitness to the incident, and he has explicitly stated that at
around 8:30 p.m. on the date of incident when he was returning
from his work, he saw accused-appellants Palaram, Lalchand,
Gulveer, Vinod were attacking the deceased. It was submitted that
the witness stated that the accused-appellant Palaram had a
Kulhadi in his hand, and the rest of the accused had dandas with
which they attacked. It was submitted that the said witness had
stated that he took the deceased to hospital in the car. It was
brought to the notice of this court that the said witness confirmed
that the accused-appellants had a previous dispute with respect to
water drainage channel. It was further submitted that Kuldeep
(P.W. 11) brother of P.W.6 also stated that he saw the deceased in
critical condition when he reached spot, and thus he went to the
hospital in the car.
4.4. It was further submitted that the accused-appellants, before
the learned Trial Court took the defense that the deceased got the
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (12 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
injuries due to accident of the motorcycle he was driving, and the
learned Trial Court after considering the testimonies of P.W.1,
P.W.4, P.W. 5 and P.W.6 and the Naksha Mauka (Ex.P.3) came to
the conclusion that it could not be said that the injuries caused to
the deceased were due to an accident.
4.5. It was further submitted that during investigation the Naksha
Mauka (Ex.P.3) was prepared, seizure of soil present at the place
of incident (Ex.P.4) and the clothes of the deceased (Ex.P.6), was
done. Furthermore, it was submitted that a Kulhadi was recovered
at the instance of accused appellant Palaram (Ex.P.10) which had
blood stains on it, a danda was recovered at the instance of
accused-appellant Lalchand which also had blood stains on it, a
danda was also recovered at the instance of accused-appellant
Gulveer which had bloodstains on it, and a lathi was recovered at
the instance of the accused-appellant Vinod with blood stains on
it, which were sent for FSL report. As per the FSL report (Ex.P.46),
it was submitted that the clothes of the deceased and the danda
recovered from accused-appellant Lalchand had group “A” blood
on it, which was also the blood group of the deceased.
4.6. It was further submitted that P.W.1 had explicitly stated that
the deceased got injury on the head which was caused by the
accused-appellants, and P.W. 13, the doctor who examined the
deceased and prepared injury report (Ex.P.39) found 5 injuries on
the body of the deceased, including injury no. 5 which was on the
head of the deceased. Furthermore, it was submitted that P.W. 17,
the doctor who conducted the postmortem on 02.09.2016, and
prepared the postmortem report (Ex.P.45) came to the conclusion
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (13 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
that the cause of the death were the injuries on the head, neck
and body of the deceased, and gave the opinion that the such
injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
4.7. It was further submitted that P.W.1 also stated in her
testimony that while saving the deceased she was also injured by
the accused-appellants, and P.W.14, the doctor who examined her
found injuries on her body which were simple in nature.
Furthermore, it was contended that P.W.1 in her testimony and
Parcha Bayan had stated that the accused-appellants also hurled
abuses to the complainant on the basis of her caste.
4.8. It was also submitted that to establish the case under
section 302 read with section 34 of IPC the prosecution produced
P.W.1 and P.W.6 who stated in their testimony that all the accused-
appellants attacked the deceased at once. It was further
submitted that in order to bring the case under section 34 IPC at
home it is not necessary that there must be prior conspiracy or
premeditation, the common intention can be formed in the course
of occurrence. The Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Dasrath Singh and ors. vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC 197, wherein it was
held that accused who was armed with kulhadi and inflicted
injuries to the deceased and the other accused merely yielding
lathis whereby they gave blows on the head of the deceased were
equally liable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC.
4.9. Further reliance was placed on the following Judgments:
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (14 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
(i) Vasant and ors. vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal
Appeal No. 593 of 2022 decided on 11.02.2025 by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India)
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of
the case as well as the precedents cited at the bar.
6. This Court observes that the testimony of Jagveer Kaur (P.W.1),
who was both the complainant and an injured eyewitness, formed
the foundation of the prosecution’s case. Her version of events
remained consistent throughout, from her Parcha Bayan, to the
First Information Report, and during her deposition before the
Court. The consistent attribution of specific roles and overt acts to
each of the accused-appellants, supported by the injuries
sustained by her and the deceased, lent inherent credibility to her
evidence. Her presence at the scene was natural, and her injuries
as reflected in injury report prepared by he doctor (P.W.14) further
reinforced the authenticity of her account.
7. This Court observes that the minor discrepancy regarding the
weapon used by accused-appellant Palaram, described at one
point as a Kaapa and later as a Kulhadi, stood adequately
explained. It is well-established that minor inconsistencies in
peripheral details do not erode the core of the prosecution’s case,
particularly when such discrepancies were immaterial and do not
go to the root of the matter. The essential elements of P.W.1’s
narrative remained consistent and were corroborated by P.W.6,
medical and forensic evidence.
8. This Court observes that the testimonies of Paramjeet Singh
(P.W.4), Major Singh (P.W.5), and Paramand (P.W.6) provided
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (15 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
significant corroboration to P.W.1’s version of the incident. In
particular, P.W.6, an independent eyewitness, stated that he had
seen the incident and identified all four accused-appellants as
active participants in the incident, and were wielding specific
weapons, as stated in his testimony. The account so given was
consistent with the weapons later recovered. These depositions
withstood cross-examination and were devoid of embellishments.
No credible reason was suggested to explain why these witnesses
would falsely implicate the appellants.
9. This Court observes that the defense plea that the deceased
suffered injuries in a motorcycle accident appeared wholly
unsustainable in the face of compelling ocular and documentary
evidence. The topography recorded in Ex.P.3 (Naksha Mauka) and
the seizure of blood-stained soil from the site and recovery of
weapons clearly established that the entire incident occurred at
the location as mentioned by the prosecution.
10. This Court observes that the Forensic Science Laboratory
Report (Ex.P.46) lent material corroboration to the prosecution’s
case, confirming the presence of blood of group “A”, matching that
of the deceased, on the danda recovered from accused-appellant
Lalchand and on the deceased’s clothing. Although blood grouping
could not be ascertained on all items, the confirmed presence of
human blood on weapons tied to the assailants was supportive of
the prosecution case. The absence of grouping did not diminish
the evidentiary value of the FSL report in light of the testimonies
of P.W.1 and P.W.6.
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (16 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
11. This Court observes that the medical evidence, especially the
injury report (Ex.P.39) and postmortem report (Ex.P.45),
confirmed that the deceased sustained injuries by use of weapons
which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. Furthermore, the findings of P.W.13 and P.W.17, who
treated the deceased and conducted the postmortem respectively,
were clear and aligned with the ocular testimony of P.W.1 and
P.W.6. Their opinions effectively ruled out any accidental cause of
death.
12. This Court observes that the argument advanced on behalf od
accused-appellant regarding the prosecution’s failure to examine
certain named witnesses was devoid of merit. The law does not
mandate examination of every possible witness, and this Court is
of the considered view that in circumstances such as the present,
judicial scrutiny must be guided by the quality rather than the
quantity of the testimonies adduced. What matters is whether the
witnesses examined were reliable and sufficient to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt, a threshold the prosecution comfortably
met in this instance.
13. This Court observes that the allegation of being interested
witness against P.W.1, owing to her relationship with the deceased
and enmity with the accused-appellants, was insufficient to
discredit her testimony. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalbir Kaur &
Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158, held that the
term “interested” viz-a-viz a witness, envisages that the witness
must have a direct interest in having the accused convicted for
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (17 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
some hostility, enmity, or animus. Furthermore, it was observed
that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded
as an interested witness. This Court observes that in the present
case, the P.W.1. cannot be said to be interested, as the incident
occurred in the close vicinity where the she lived. Thus, the
possibility of her being natural witnesses cannot be ruled out.
14. This Court observes that the delay of ten days between the
incident and the victim’s death did not break the causal link
between the assault and the fatal outcome. The injuries suffered
by the deceased were grievous and required intensive medical
care. The subsequent death was clearly a consequence of the
injuries inflicted, as evidenced by PMR (Ex.P.45) wherein it was
opined that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of
nature to cause death, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC
is fully justified.
15. This Court observes that the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.6
clearly established that accused-appellants Lalchand, Palaram,
Gulveer and Vinod acted in furtherance of a common intention.
The actions of the accused-appellants were clearly concerted and
directed towards causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The
combined assault, the nature and location of injuries, and the
coordinated manner in which the attack was carried out,
collectively establish the existence of a common intention to cause
the death of the victim. Therefore, in view of the principles laid
down in Dasrath Singh (supra), the accused-appellants
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (18 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
Lalchand, Gulveer and Vinod are rightly held liable under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC.
16. This Court observes that the charge under section 323 IPC is
duly justified in light of the injuries sustained by complainant
Jagveer Kaur, which have been medically examined and
corroborated by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The
injury report(EX.P.41) and testimony of P.W. 14 the doctor who
examined the complainant, on record clearly indicates that
Jagveer Kaur suffered simple injuries caused by blunt objects,
which directly aligns with the ocular version of the incident as
narrated by the injured herself.
17. This Court observes that the prosecution established the
commission of caste-based abuses by the accused-appellants, as
deposed by P.W.1, thereby invoking the provisions of Section 3(1)
(R) and (S) of the SC/ST Act. There was no material to suggest
that the complainant harbored any false motive on this count, and
her evidence remained uncontroverted and supported by
circumstances.
18. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce
the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu alias Deepu
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 as hereunder:
“22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should
be of very high quality and caliber whose version should,
therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version
of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its
face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such
a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (19 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement
made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would
be the consistency of the statement right from the starting
point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness
makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court.
It should be natural and consistent with the case of the
prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any
prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness
should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of
any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no
circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the
factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as
the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation
with each and every one of other supporting material such as
the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of
offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert
opinion. The said version should consistently match with the
version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the case of
circumstantial evidence where there should not be any
missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the
accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the
version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as
all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that
such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose
version can be accepted by the court without any
corroboration and based on which the guilty can be
punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness
on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while
all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and
material objects should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to
rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting
materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge
alleged.”
18.1. This Court is satisfied that testimonies of the
eyewitness are of sterling quality, which further strengthens
the case of the prosecution, so as to justify the conviction
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (20 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
and award of sentence to the accused-appellants by the
learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence.
19. This Court also observes that in addition to the
aforementioned direct evidence, there are also circumstantial
evidences available which also corroborate the story of the
prosecution. One such circumstance is the presence of motive, i.e.
the dispute with respect to water drainage channel and
subsequent cases thereto, on the part of the accused-appellants
to commit the crime in question. The said factor, when conjointly
seen with other material on record and in the overall perspective,
clearly substantiates the prosecution story.
20. Thus, this Court observes that the prosecution has been able
to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all
reasonable doubts.
21. This Court further observes that the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court 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 witness 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
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (21 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference
by this Court in the instant appeal.
22. Thus, in light of the factual matrix of the case and the
evidences adduced, this Court observes that in the instant case,
the actus reus, mens rea and the causation element for the
offence of murder have been made out, thereby bringing the case
against the accused-appellant Palaram within the purview of
Section 302, and accused-appellant Lalchand, Gulveer and Vinod
within the purview of section 302 read with section 34 IPC.
Furthermore, the injuries caused by the accused appellant to
Jagveer Kaur (complainant) make them liable under section 323
IPC, and caste-based abuses hurled by the accused-appellants
justify the conviction under section 3(1)(R) and (S) of the SC/ST
Act.
23. In the present case, there were 2 eye-witnesses, i.e., P.W. 1
and P.W.6, whose testimonies were corroborated by other
evidence available on record and the other incriminating
circumstances in the case, thereby enabling the prosecution to
prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all
reasonable doubts and denying the accused-appellants any benefit
of doubt.
24. The judgments relied upon on behalf of the accused-appellants
do not render any assistance to their case.
25. Thus, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to call for any
interference in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial
Court.
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23339-DB] (22 of 22) [CRLAD-228/2019]
26. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, while
upholding the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 25.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.62/2016 (State of Rajasthan
Vs. Lalchand and Ors.).
26.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:47:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link