Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ranglal vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jp:29812-Db) on 4 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:29812-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 465/2001
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Dharam Raj S/o Manna Lal, R/o Luhar Colony, Chamraghar,
Madan Ganj (Ajmer).
2. Satya Narain S/o Manna Lal, R/o Luhar Colony, Madan Ganj,
P.S. Madan Ganj, District Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 210/2001
Ranglal son of Gangaram, R/o Katewa Nagar, Gurjar Ki Thadi,
New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner/Complainant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Dharamraj S/o Manna Lal, R/o Luhar Colony, Chamraghar,
Madan Ganj (Ajmer).
3. Satyanarain son of Mannalal, R/o Luhar Colony, Madanganj,
Ajmer.
—-Respondents
For State : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore,P.P.
For Complainat(s) : Mr. Saurabh Vaishnav for
Mr. Sunil Tyagi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta with
Mr. Sarwat Alam
Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh
Mr. Gourav Sharma and
Ms. Chandrakala Sahu
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:28:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29812-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLA-465/2001]
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment
04/08/2025
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:
The State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the judgment
dated 04.01.2001 acquitting Dharamraj S/o Manna Lal
and Satyanarain S/o Manna Lal (respondents). The
complainant- Ranglal S/o Gangaram has filed revision against
acquittal.
2. The facts as set up by the prosecution are that after
recording parcha bayan of Amita (hereinafter referred to as
‘deceased’), on report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kishangarh
(SDM), FIR No.318/1999 was lodged at Police Station Madanganj,
District Ajmer under Sections 143, 307, 120-B IPC and later on
Section 302 IPC was added. The deceased stated that on the night
of 06.09.1999 at around 3:00 am she alongwith her sister Pushpa
were sleeping in the courtyard of house of Pushpa when
Dharamraj (husband of the deceased), Satyanarain-brother-in-law
(devar), Moolchand- brother-in-law (jeth), Govindram- brother-in-
law (nandoi), Shanti – sister-in-law (jethani), Vimla- sister-in-law
(nanad) and Mangi- sister-in-law (devrani) came, her husband
from a container (in which kerosene oil is stored ‘hereinafter
referred to as container’) poured kerosene and Satyanarain
(brother-in-law) lit fire with matchbox. She was taken to
YN Hospital, Kishangarh at around 5:00 am and her statement
was recorded. She was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where she
succumbed to injuries on 11.09.1999. The postmortem was
conducted. The cause of death was determined due to septicemic
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:28:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29812-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLA-465/2001]
shock as a result of extensive antemortem burn injuries which
were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The
charge-sheet was filed against Dharamraj, Satyanarain,
Govindram, Shanti, Vimla and Mangi. The prosecution recorded
statement of twenty one witnesses and exhibited twenty six
documents. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
it was stated to be a case of false implication.
2.1 During trial apart from respondents all other accused were
discharged vide order dated 02.05.2000. The respondents were
acquitted holding that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
complainant submitted that statement of deceased read with
testimony of PW-17 Pushpa proved that respondents had burned
the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that PW-4
Mahaveer (tenant) stated to be eye witness had not supported the
case of prosecution. PW-3 Bhanwar Lal, PW-12 Ramswaroop and
PW-13 Hazari (guests in the house of Pushpa on the date of
incident) examined as eye witnesses by prosecution were declared
hostile. Contention is that recovery of container from house of
Amarchand was doubtful. It is argued that PW-9 Mohana Ram
(tenant in the house of Pushpa) had not attributed specific acts to
the accused.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
with their able assistance.
6. The scope of interference in the appeal against the judgment
of acquittal is enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:28:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29812-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLA-465/2001]
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in [(2024) 8 SCC 149] held:-
“40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of
Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court
summarised the principles governing the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal
under Section 378 Cr.PC as follows:
“8. xxx xxx xxx
8.1. The acquittal of the accused
further strengthens the presumption
of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while
hearing an appeal against acquittal,
is entitled to re-appreciate the oral
and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while
deciding an appeal against acquittal,
after re-appreciating the evidence,
is required to consider whether the
view taken by the trial court is a
possible view which could have been
taken on the basis of the evidence
on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible
view, the appellate court cannot
overturn the order of acquittal on
the ground that another view was
also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can
interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a finding that the
only conclusion which can be
recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the
guilt of the accused was proved
beyond a reasonable doubt and no
other conclusion was possible.”
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that
the scope of interference by an appellate
court for reversing the judgment of acquittal
recorded by the trial court in favour of the
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:28:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29812-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLA-465/2001]
accused has to be exercised within the four
corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers
from patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and
41.3. 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.”
7. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with
Dharamraj ten years prior to the date of the incident. Pushpa
(sister of the deceased) was married to brother of the husband of
the deceased. On 06.09.1999, the deceased was brought to the
hospital with 90% burn injuries and on recording of statement by
SDM, FIR was lodged. The deceased in her statement named
seven persons who had come to the house of Pushpa to kill her
and specifically attributed the act of pouring kerosene from a
container to Dharamraj (husband of the deceased) and
Satyanarain- brother-in-law (devar) lit fire with a matchbox. Out
of seven named accused, five were discharged during trial.
Nothing has been brought before this Court that discharge of the
co-accused was ever challenged.
8. As per site plan, boundary wall of the house of Pushpa was
four and a half feet high whereas, PW-12 Ramswaroop stated that
boundary wall was seven feet high and it was not easy for a
person to jump over it. Further it was stated that the main gate of
house was locked during night time. PW-4 Mahaveer testified that
on the night of the incident, he had locked the main gate and
opened it in the morning.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:28:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29812-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLA-465/2001]
8.1 PW-4 Mahaveer, PW-9 Mohana Ram (tenants), PW-12
Ramswaroop and PW-13 Hazari (guests in the house of Pushpa)
were projected to be eye witnesses but they had either not
supported the case of prosecution or were declared hostile.
9. Testimony of PW-17 Pushpa was not found reliable by the
trial court being an interested witness i.e. sister of the deceased.
There was contradiction in the deposition of PW-17 Pushpa
vis-a-vis statement made before police.
10. The deceased had suffered 90% burn injuries. The official
recording statement was neither specified nor examined by
prosecution. Dying declaration was not recorded in
question-answer form. In the facts of the case, the trial court
rightly had not convicted respondents solely on basis of dying
declaration in absence of it being corroborated by other evidence.
11. Another aspect is that the incident was of 06.09.1999 at
around 3:00 am. The deceased was admitted in hospital at 5:00
am, injury report was prepared at 5:00 am, fitness for recording
of the statement was at 5:00 am and the statement was also
recorded at 5:00 am. Considering the condition of the deceased,
she was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur at 5:00 am. All these
incidents happening at 5:00 am proved fatal for the prosecution
story.
12. The prosecution failed to produce bedhead ticket of the
deceased of YN Hospital, Kishangarh as well as SMS Hospital,
Jaipur.
13. PW-17 Pushpa was medically examined on 17.09.1999, she
suffered six simple injuries and all sustained by blunt weapon.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:28:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29812-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLA-465/2001]
According to her statement, she doused fire but there were no
burn injuries on her hand and body.
14. The recovery of container from open space was not
enhancing the case of prosecution.
15. In view of the above, the detailed, well reasoned impugned
judgment passed after considering the facts and appreciating the
evidence adduced, suffers from no factual or legal error much less
perversity calling for interference in the appeal and revision. The
appeal and the revision petition are dismissed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Simple Kumawat /20-21
Whether Reportable: Yes
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:28:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)