Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ramkumar @ Ramveer S/O Roshanlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.269/2020
Ramkumar @ Ramveer S/o Roshanlal, R/o Mudota, Distt.
Bharatpur Raj. Recent Address Tenant In House Of Shri Bishanlal
Somwanshi Mehtab Singh Ka Nohra Alwar
(Appellant Is Confined In Central Jail Alwar)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Aditya Narayan Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, P.P.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 08/08/2025
Pronounced on: 13/08/2025
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:-
This appeal is preferred by Ramkumar @ Ramveer
(hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) against the judgment dated
03.09.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge No.2, Alwar in
Sessions Case No.42/2014, convicting the accused-appellant
under Section 302 IPC. Vide order of even date, the appellant was
ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further
undergo six months simple imprisonment.
2. The facts as set up by the prosecution are that on complaint
of Kamal, brother of Geeta (hereinafter referred to as
‘complainant’) an FIR No.325 dated 29.12.2013 was registered at
Police Station Mahila Thana, Alwar under Sections 304B and 498A
IPC. As per the complainant, Geeta (hereinafter referred to as
‘deceased’) was married to the appellant few years back and there
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:12:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020]
are two children out of the wedlock. The couple was staying on
rent in Mehtab Singh Ka Nohra, Alwar. The elder sister of the
complainant Babita had taken room on first floor on rent in the
same premises. Allegations are that the appellant tortured the
deceased and demanded dowry. On 29.12.2013 at about 8.30 A.M
the deceased was tortured for dowry and killed by giving a griddle
(Tawa) blow on her head. The charge-sheet against the appellant
was filed u/s 498A, 304B & 302 IPC and after supplying copy of
challan the trial was committed to Sessions Court. Charges were
framed u/s 498A, 304B and in alternate u/s 302 IPC. The
appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution
examined sixteen witnesses and exhibited seventeen documents
to prove the case. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant
denied the allegations and examined himself in defence. The trial
Court after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence
concluded that the prosecution failed to prove second marriage of
the deceased with the appellant and the ingredients of dowry
death for invoking Sections 304B and 498A IPC but the appellant
was convicted u/s 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that deposition of
PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi was not reliable. The deposition
of PW-9 Babita, PW-16 Surendra Singh (Investigating Officer) and
the site plan (Ex.P.3) are relied upon to contend that apart from
the door there was no entry to the room of Babita, the windows
had grills and it was not proved that PW-1 Rajendra Kumar
Somvanshi entered the room after breaking the grill. Submission
is that recovery of griddle (Tawa) at the instance of the appellant
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:12:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020]
is not an evidence of it having been used in the incident by the
appellant.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that Rajendra Kumar
Somvanshi sole eye witness to the incident attributed specific role
to the appellant of giving griddle blow on the head of the
deceased. Submission is that deposition of PW-1 Rajendra Kumar
Somvanshi was supported by testimony of his father PW-2 Bisan
Lal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
with their able assistance.
6. The case set up by the prosecution is that appellant and the
deceased were residing together in a rented accommodation on
ground floor belonging to PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi. The
elder sister of the deceased Babita had taken room on rent on the
first floor in the same premises. On 28.12.2013, there was
altercation between the appellant and the deceased, the latter was
turned out of the house and Babita took the deceased and her
children to her room. In the next morning the appellant went to
the room of Babita, everybody had tea. Babita went to her work at
8:00 AM. PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi at 8.30 AM hearing
the screams went to the room of Babita, which was bolted. On
entering the room from the window, he saw that the deceased was
lying on the floor and the appellant was hitting on her head with a
griddle. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The appellant
was apprehended by the police from his room on the ground floor.
The blood stained griddle was recovered on 30.12.2013 from the
room of appellant.
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:12:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020]
7. The case of the prosecution for conviction u/s 302 IPC is
based upon the testimony of PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi,
the sole eye-witness. The other witnesses PW-2 Bisan Lal, PW-3
Kamal (complainant), PW-5 Radhey Shyam, PW-6 Seema (mother
of the deceased), PW-7 Baljeet and PW-9 Babita (sister of the
deceased) had not seen the incident.
8. PW-4 Raju was witness to the panchnama. PW-8 Shiv Singh
and PW-11 Jhamman were witnesses to the memo of recovery of
marriage contract. PW-10 Dr. Dhurav Singh conducted the
postmortem. PW-12 Satish Kumar, PW-13 Shobha and PW-14
Santosh were the formal witnesses.
9. The cause of death as per the postmortem report (‘PMR’) is
Coma, as a result of multiple ante-mortem bodily injuries,
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
10. PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi testified that on
29.12.2013 at about 8.30 AM on hearing the screams from the
room of Babita and finding the door bolted, he entered the room
through window. In the room he saw that the deceased was lying
on the floor and the appellant was giving blow with griddle on her
head. The appellant thereafter hid himself in his room and PW-1
gave information to the sister of the deceased.
11. PW-2 Bisan Lal (father of PW-1) deposed that at the time of
incident, on hearing the screams he tried to go upstairs and saw
the appellant was coming down with a griddle in his hand and
thereafter hid in his room. The appellant was followed by PW-1
who told him that the appellant killed his wife with the griddle.
12. From perusal of the site-plan (Ex.P.3) and deposition of
Babita the undisputed fact emerges that there was one door and
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:12:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020]
two windows in the room. The windows opened towards the
roadside. Babita deposed that the grills were mounted in the
windows.
13. PW-16 Surendra Singh (Investigating Officer) in
cross-examination stated that windows in the room of Babita on
the first floor opened towards the road and there was no entry to
the room except the door. I.O. deposed that no window or door
was found to be broken.
14. The eye-witness PW-1 specifically stated that he entered the
room from window as the room was bolted. This statement is in
contradiction with the site plan, testimony of Babita and the I.O.
The room of Babita which was on the first floor had two windows
opening towards roadside and fitted with grills but there is no
proof that the grills were broken. The presence of the eye-witness
in the room as set up by the prosecution is not proved.
15. PW-2 Bisan Lal had not witnessed the incident and his
statement does not enhance the case of the prosecution. PW-2
saw his son PW-1 Rajendra Singh Somvanshi and the appellant
coming downstairs and the appellant was carrying griddle in his
hand.
16. Another aspect to be considered is that the accused was
arrested from his room and not from the room of Babita. The
blood stained griddle was recovered from the room of appellant on
30.12.2013. No FSL report of the blood-stains on the griddle was
produced in the trial. No fingerprints from the griddle were taken.
The I.O. stated that neither the fingerprints nor footprints of the
accused or any other person present at spot were taken. The I.O.
deposed that he did not remember whether there were
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:12:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020]
blood-stains on the floor, door or walls of the room. PW-1
Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi stated that there were no blood-stains
on the clothes of the appellant. Blood stained sweater of the
deceased was recovered but no FSL report of blood-stains on
sweater of the deceased was produced.
17. There is nothing produced on the record that the clothes of
the appellant were blood-stained and were recovered. This needs
to be considered in the backdrop that consequent to injuries
inflicted there were three lacerated wounds on the head of the
deceased and one of the injury exposed brain matter, yet no
evidence of blood splattered on floor, walls or on cloth of appellant
was collected and produced.
18. The law is well-settled that the prosecution has to prove the
case to the hilt and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the
accused. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the
Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhagirath & Ors.
reported in [(1999)5 SCC 96] wherein the Court held :-
“But the principle of benefit of doubt
belongs exclusively to the criminal
jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of
benefit of doubt can be invoked when there
is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of
the accused. It is the reasonable doubt
which a conscientious judicial mind
entertains on a conspectus of the entire
evidence that the accused might not have
committed the offence, which affords the
benefit to the accused at the end of the
criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal
dosage to be administered at every
segment of the evidence, but an advantage
to be afforded to the accused at the final
end after consideration of the entire
evidence, if the judge conscientiously and
reasonably entertains doubt regarding the
guilt of the accused.”
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:12:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020]
19. There cannot be quarrel with the proposition that number of
witnesses is not relevant for proving the case of the prosecution.
Even one witness or limited number of witness can be sufficient.
What is important is the reliability of the witness. In eventuality of
the witness not being wholly dependable, such oral testimony
needs corroboration by other evidence or witness.
20. The Supreme Court in the case of Govindaraju Alias
Govinda Vs. State By Sriramapuram Police Station and Anr.
reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722 considered the earlier judgment in
Lallu Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2003) 2 SCC
401 dealt with the categories of reliability of a witness and held:-
“24. It is a settled proposition of law of
evidence that it is not the number of witnesses
that matters but it is the substance. It is also
not necessary to examine a large number of
witnesses if the prosecution can bring home the
guilt of the accused even with a limited number
of witnesses. In Lallu Manjhi v. State of
Jharkhand [(2003) 2 SCC 401, this Court
had classified the oral testimony of the
witnesses into three categories:
(a) wholly reliable;
(b) wholly unreliable; and
(c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable.
In the third category of witnesses, the court has
to be cautious and see if the statement of such
witness is corroborated, either by the other
witnesses or by other documentary or expert
evidence.
21. In the present case there is only one eye witness who stated
to have entered the room of Babita through window and after
entering the room had seen the incident. As discussed above the
presence of PW-1 in room at the time of incident is clouded with
doubt. The deposition of PW-1 that appellant killed the deceased
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:12:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020]
by giving griddle below on her head remained uncorroborated. The
testimony of other witnesses is based upon hearsay. Non
production of FSL report of recovered blood stained griddle and
failure to pick fingerprints from griddle critically dented the case of
prosecution and the oral testimony of PW-1 was not corroborated.
22. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt, the appellant is acquitted giving benefit of doubt. The
impugned judgment convicting the appellant u/s 302 IPC and the
order of sentence are quashed.
23. The conviction of the appellant is set aside. The appellant is
acquitted of the charges framed against him. The appeal is
allowed. The appellant who is in custody, be set at liberty
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
24. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 BNSS,
appellant Ramkumar @ Ramveer is directed to forthwith furnish a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and surety bond of the
like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which
shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation
that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this
judgment or on grant of leave, appellant Ramkumar @ Ramveer
on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme
Court.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Monika/Chandan/4
Reportable: Yes
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:12:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)