Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Shanker Lal And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:32755-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 442/1993
1. Shanker Lal S/o Ram Singh, r/o Premnagar, Sriganganagar.
2. Mahendra @ Munna Lal, S/o Ram Sahai, R/o Sirsa Badan,
Zila Eta, U.P.
----Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
Reserved on : 17/07/2025
Pronounced on : 01/08/2025
1. Assailed herein is the judgment and order dated 15.10.1993,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2,
Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.54/92 (61/92) whereby the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Shanker Lal Mahendra U/s. 302 IPC: U/s. 302/34 IPC: Sentenced for life imprisonment Sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and in with fine of Rs.100/- and in default whereof to undergo one default whereof to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. month's rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324 IPC: U/s. 324 IPC: Sentenced for one year's Sentenced for one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of Rs.200/- and in default whereof to further undergo one whereof to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. month's rigorous imprisonment.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:21:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32755-DB] (2 of 11) [CRLA-442/1993]
2. The case originated from an FIR lodged on 14.06.1992 at
Police Station Kotwali, Sriganganagar, based on a statement by
Amar Singh (now deceased) wherein he alleged that he used to
sell fruits near the Government Girls College and, on the day of
the incident, accused-appellant No.1, Shanker, placed his fruit-cart
while obstructing in Amar Singh’s cart. In response, Amar Singh’s
son, Rakesh, moved Shanker’s cart. Later at around 9.00 p.m.,
enraged, Shanker, along with accused-appellant No.2 Mahendra,
and his father-in-law and brothers-in-law, all armed with knives,
surrounded Amar Singh and began attacking him. Shanker
allegedly stabbed him in the stomach, while Mahendra stabbed
him in the back. On hearing his cries, Rakesh and others rushed to
the scene, prompting the attackers to flee.
2.1 An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, and 325 of the IPC. After Amar Singh later succumbed
to his injuries, therefore, Section 302 IPC was added.
2.2 Upon completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 324 IPC against the
appellants and three others, namely, Om Prakash, Umrao, and
Mahendrapal. Thereafter, charges were framed under Sections
302/149, 324, and 148 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not
guilty and sought trial.
2.3 During the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and
exhibited 38 documents. Accused Shanker Lal in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that the deceased Amar Singh
attacked on him and in defence, deceased Amar Singh sustained
injuries but he never intended to kill him. He also stated that he
did not purposely caused any injury to the deceased Amar Singh.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:21:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32755-DB] (3 of 11) [CRLA-442/1993]
2.4 After appreciating the evidence, the trial court convicted and
sentenced the appellants, while acquitting the remaining co-
accused through the impugned judgment. Hence, the present
appellants have preferred against their conviction for the aforesaid
offences.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants, while
challenging the impugned judgment has made the following
submissions:-
(i) The trial court failed to consider that the allegations against
all five accused were general and non-specific. No distinct role was
attributed to the present appellants in the assault on Amar Singh.
Therefore, the benefit of doubt extended to the other co-accused
should have also been given to the appellants.
(ii) The court erred in accepting the prosecution version and in
treating PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal as credible
eyewitnesses. The testimony of PW-4 Rakesh is particularly
questionable. It is implausible that Rakesh, despite allegedly being
present during the violent attack on his father, sustained no
injuries and had no bloodstains on his clothes whereas it was
deposed by him that after the assault he took his father (deceased
Amar Singh) to the hospital in the fruit-cart. This raises serious
doubt about his presence at the scene and rather suggests that he
was introduced later by the prosecution to strengthen their case.
(iii) According to PW-1 Dr. Rajeev Kaushik and PW-2 Dr. K.N.
Markandey, the cause of death was a ruptured spleen. However,
both doctors acknowledged that a person can survive even after
spleen’s removal, indicating uncertainty regarding the exact cause
of death. Therefore, there was insufficient medical evidence to
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:21:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32755-DB] (4 of 11) [CRLA-442/1993]
conclusively establish that Amar Singh died as a result of injury
No.10 or the injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellants.
(iv) If PW-4 Rakesh and PW-8 Satpal had indeed witnessed the
incident and had taken Amar Singh to the hospital on a fruit cart,
as stated, it is highly unlikely that neither of them would have any
bloodstains on their clothes. Their clean appearance contradicts
the narrative and undermines their credibility. Beyond these two,
no independent eyewitness supported the prosecution version.
(v) Both PW-4 Rakesh and PW-8 Satpal are interested witnesses
with personal stakes in the case, and their testimony alone cannot
form the sole basis for convicting the appellants without
corroboration.
(vi) Kishorilal, as claimed by the prosecution to have arrived
immediately after the assault, was not examined as a witness. In
the absence of his testimony and any additional supporting
evidence, the trial court should have extended the benefit of doubt
to the appellants, as was done in the case of the acquitted co-
accused.
(vii) In view of statement given by accused-appellant No1.
Shankerlal, it was a sudden fight and the accused-appellant No.1
Shankerlal so also deceased Amar Singh sustained knife injuries.
He had no motive to kill nor was there any plan or preparation of
murder. The weapon used is knife and the same is commonly kept
by every seller in the fruit-cart. He further stated that he never
intended to kill Amar Singh. The injuries received by him as well
as Amar Singh were while he was defending himself.
3.1 In conclusion, counsel argued that the prosecution failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:21:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32755-DB] (5 of 11) [CRLA-442/1993]
conviction recorded by the trial court is unsustainable and ought
to be set aside, and the appellants should be acquitted of all
charges.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State
contended that the trial court had thoroughly considered the
entire evidence on record and rightly convicted the present
appellants. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to claim
parity with the co-accused who were acquitted, as the allegations
against them were omnibus in nature, whereas the involvement of
the appellants was clearly established.
In addition to above, learned counsel appearing for State has
made the following submissions:-
(i) The incident took place on 14.06.1992 at approximately 9:00
p.m., and Amar Singh (the deceased) was promptly taken to the
hospital, at around 9:20 p.m. According to PW-10 Bhanwar Singh,
the Investigating Officer, Statement of Amar Singh (deceased)
was recorded at about 9:45 p.m., and the FIR was subsequently
registered around 10:00 p.m. This clear timeline demonstrates
that there was no delay in providing medical assistance, recording
the statement of the victim, or registering the FIR. As such, it
cannot be said that there was any undue delay or manipulation in
the sequence of events, and the prosecution version of the
incident remains credible and unshaken.
(ii) The presence of PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal at the
time of incident cannot be doubted as the deceased Amar Singh
was picked up from the place of incident and he was brought to
the hospital on the fruit-cart by the said witness. The presence of
PW-4 Rakesh Kumar is shown not only in the statement of
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:21:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32755-DB] (6 of 11) [CRLA-442/1993]deceased Amar Singh but also in the first information report and,
therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his presence.
As far as PW-8 Satpal is concerned, although his name does
not appear in the statement of Amar Singh or in the FIR, the fact
that he sustained injuries while intervening during the altercation
clearly proves his presence at the scene of occurrence. His injuries
substantiate his role as an eyewitness to the incident.
(iii) The medical evidence further supports the prosecution case.
Both PW-1 and PW-2 (the doctors) confirmed that Amar Singh
sustained 14 injuries, most of which were incised wounds caused
by a sharp-edged weapon, except for injuries No. 8 and 9. The
knife used in the attack was recovered from the appellants, linking
them directly to the assault.
Notably, PW-2 Dr. K.N. Markandey, who conducted the post-
mortem, opined that injury No. 10 alone was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. He opined that, ” esjh jk;
esa vej flag dh e~R;q “kkWd ,.M gejht ls tks Liyhu (rhyh) ij pksV yxus
ls gqbZ Fkh tks pksV ua-10 ls lacaf/kr Fkh ftlls vfeusVe ckgj vk x;s FksA ”
This clear medical opinion leaves no doubt that the cause of death
was directly related to the injuries inflicted, particularly injury No.
10.
(iv) The appellants cannot equate their role with that of the
acquitted co-accused. PW-8 Satpal, an injured eyewitness,
explicitly stated that accused Shankerlal stabbed Amar Singh in
the stomach, while appellant No. 2 Mahendra stabbed him in the
back. Additionally, in his dying declaration, Amar Singh clearly
named both Shankerlal and Mahendra, the accused-appellants, as
the assailants. This direct attribution of acts to the appellants
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:21:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32755-DB] (7 of 11) [CRLA-442/1993]distinguishes their role and disqualifies any claim for parity with
the others who were acquitted.
(v) Although accused Shankerlal and the deceased Amar Singh
were real brothers, the record shows that there were prior
criminal cases between them. On the day of the incident, a
dispute arose over the placement of fruit carts, which escalated
into the fatal attack. This immediate provocation establish a clear
motive for the crime, refuting any argument that there was no
reason for the appellants to commit the murder.
4.1 In conclusion, learned counsel for the State argued that the
appellants attacked on Amar Singh, inflicting as many as 14
injuries. The nature and extent of these injuries clearly indicate a
deliberate intent to kill. Therefore, the trial court rightly convicted
the appellants for the offences charged against them.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
6. Upon examination of the case record, it is evident that the
prosecution case primarily rests on the testimonies of PW-4
Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal. Accordingly, it is essential to first
assess the evidence presented by these two witnesses.
6.1 PW-4 Rakesh Kumar deposed that he was present at the
scene when the incident occurred. Earlier, on the same day, a
dispute had arisen when he and Satpal removed the fruit-cart
belonging to Shankerlal. He further stated that Shankerlal, armed
with a knife, attacked the deceased Amar Singh by stabbing him
in the stomach, while Mahendra stabbed him in the back. He also
deposed that Satpal attempted to snatch the knife from Shankerlal
and, in doing so, sustained injuries to his fingers. During cross-
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:21:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32755-DB] (8 of 11) [CRLA-442/1993]
examination, PW-4 disclosed that there had been a previous
altercation between the accused-appellant No.1 Shankerlal and
the deceased Amar Singh, just two to three days before the
incident, concerning the placement of their fruit-carts. This prior
conflict serves to establish that their relationship was not cordial.
6.2 PW-8 Satpal corroborated the statement of PW-4 Rakesh
Kumar, stating that he intervened during the assault on Amar
Singh and tried to take the knife from Shankerlal, which resulted
in injuries to his fingers. He clearly stated that both accused
inflicted the injuries on Amar Singh. However, in cross-
examination, he admitted that while he saw the two accused
attacking Amar Singh, he could not specify the exact body parts
on which the injuries were inflicted.
6.3 On a close analysis of both testimonies, the Court finds that
although there are minor inconsistencies, they are not significant
enough to undermine the credibility of the witnesses. The
presence of PW-4 and PW-8 at the scene of the incident is not in
doubt due to these minor contradictions.
7. Regarding the motive, both PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8
Satpal consistently deposed that there was an ongoing dispute
between Shankerlal and the deceased Amar Singh over the
placement of their respective fruit-carts. On the day of the
incident, Shankerlal placed his cart at the spot usually occupied by
Amar Singh, which led to the altercation. Being annoyed,
Shankerlal, along with Mahendra, attacked Amar Singh with a
knife. Thus, the motive behind the occurrence is clear. The fact of
there being a motive further fortifies with the prior animocity
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:21:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32755-DB] (9 of 11) [CRLA-442/1993]
between the deceased and the accused-appellant Shankerlal
(brother of deceased), due to criminal cases.
7.1 Furthermore, the number of stabbed injuries, which are 12 in
number, clearly indicate that they were not due to mere sudden
altercation between the appellants and the deceased Amar Singh
but they stabbed multiple times with knife and brutally murdered
the deceased Amar Singh.
8. Coming on to the cause of death of deceased, examination of
testimonies of PW-1 Dr. Rajeev Kaushik, PW-2 Dr. K.N. Markande
and PW-10 Bhanwar Singh is relevant.
8.1. PW-1 Dr. Rajeev Kaushik attended the deceased in the
hospital when he was brought in after the incident. He deposed
that PW-10 Bhanwar Singh recorded the statement of the
deceased (Ex. P/1) in his presence and he had endorsed as well as
signed the statement. With regard to the injuries sustained by the
deceased, he deposed that there were multiple injuries alongwith
stab wound on the stomach.
8.2 PW-10 Bhanwar Singh, the Investigation Officer, deposed
that he had recorded the statement of deceased and lodged the
FIR in light of the same. His testimony corroborates the version of
PW-1 as to recording the statement of the deceased after the
incident. Both the witnesses have deposed that the statement was
not taken in question-answer format rather were narrated by the
deceased. PW-10 further deposed that deceased had suffered
multiple injuries hence, he recorded the statement immediately
instead of approaching the Magistrate.
8.3 PW-2 Dr. K.N. Markande conducted the postmortem
examination of the deceased and has deposed that the deceased
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:21:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32755-DB] (10 of 11) [CRLA-442/1993]
had suffered as many as 14 injuries and 12 of them could have
been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Furthermore, injury no.10
has been stated as fatal to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. In the postmortem report (Ex. P/3), the cause of death is
mentioned as shock, hemorrhage and injury in spleen.
8.4 Upon a conjoint consideration of the testimonies of
aforementioned witnesses and medical evidence, this Court is of
the opinion that it was indeed the injuries caused in the incident
which was witnessed by PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal
which led to death of deceased Amar Singh.
8.5 Furthermore, the accused-appellant, in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., has admitted the fact that he caused injuries
by knife. Though he stated that the deceased Amar Singh
attacked on him by knife and in self-defense, he also attacked but
looking to the injuries caused to the deceased Amar Singh, it is
clear that the accused were aggressor party. Nevertheless, this
admission clearly establishes his role in the incident along with the
accused-appellant No.2 Mahendra. Both the accused-appellants
attacked and the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to
multiple injuries, therefore, the learned trial Court was right in
convicting the accused-appellants.
9. The veracity of statement of deceased has not been
questioned therefore, the narration of incident as made by the
deceased does not raise any doubt and is further corroborated by
the testimonies of PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal. It is
clearly mentioned in the statement of deceased (Ex. P/1) as well
as the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses that accused-Shankerlal
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:21:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32755-DB] (11 of 11) [CRLA-442/1993]
stabbed the deceased Amar Singh in the stomach and accused-
Mahendra stabbed him in the back.
9.1 Further, the incident took place at around 9.00 P.M.; the
deceased Amar Singh was taken to hospital at 9.20 P.M.; and his
statement was recorded by PW-10 Bhanwar Singh (I.O.) in
presence of PW-1 Dr. Rajeev Kaushik at about 09.45 P.M.,
therefore, there was no possibility to tutor or manipulate him so
as to give statement against the accused-appellants. This also
fortifies the fact that it was the accused-appellants who committed
the offence.
9.2 In view of this, the learned trial Court was fully justified in
convicting the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections
10. In view of the discussion made above and considering the
reasons and the findings given by the learned trial court, this
Court finds no ground to reverse the conviction of the appellant-
accused. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned trial court is
upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.
11. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed
of.
12. This Court is thankful to Ms. Anjali Kaushik, who has
rendered her assistance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the
accused-appellants, in the present adjudication.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
skm/-
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:21:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)