Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Kana Ram (2025:Rj-Jd:32303-Db) on 23 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 170/1997
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Kana Ram S/o Sh. Kalu Ram, by caste Rebari, R/o Maiya ka
Bera, P.S. Samdari, District Barmer
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhagat Dadhich
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Judgment
23/07/2025
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)
The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal being
aggrieved by the judgment dt. 09.10.1996 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Balotra in Sessions Case No. 01/1996 whereby,
the trial court acquitted the respondent from offence under
Section 376, 302, 404, 201 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bagaram
lodged a written report on 03.10.1995 at the Police Station
Samdari, stating therein that on 02.10.1995, his daughter Havli
aged about 13 years went for grazing animals alongwith her uncle
Prabhu Ram. At the field, Havli went for fetching water but did not
return. When she did not return even in the evening, the
complainant and his brother Prabhu ram went in search for her
but she could not be traced. In the morning, her dead body was
found in the bushes and water can was lying there in the broken
state.
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997]
On this report, an FIR was lodged and investigation
commenced. During investigation, it was found the deceased was
raped and murdered. The police filed chargesheet against the
respondent accused for offence under Sections 376, 404, 302 IPC.
Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondent for
offence under Sections 376, 302, 404 & 201 IPC.
The prosecution in support of its case examined seventeen
witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement
of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded who pleaded
not guilty.
After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the
respondent from offence mentioned above vide judgment dated
09.10.1996, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the Court below
without going through the entire record and evidence acquitted
the respondent on the ground of minor contradictions. It is
argued that valuables of the deceased were recovered at the
instance of the accused and the bloodstained Dhoti of the accused
was also recovered, which connected the accused respondent with
the crime. He, therefore, contends that as the chain of
circumstantial evidence is complete, the guilt of the accused
stands established beyond doubt and thus, the present appeal
may be allowed and the accused respondent may be convicted
and sentenced appropriately, looking at the heinous nature of the
offence.
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997]
Per contra, counsel for the accused/respondent contends that
the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of
circumstantial evidence is not complete so as to warrant the
conviction of the accused. It is argued that the allegations are
unsubstantiated by any corroborative evidence. The recovery of
blood smeared dhoti stated to have been effected at the instance
of the accused and hair of accused were allegedly sent to the FSL
but no FSL report has been produced by the prosecution. Reliance
is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnudatta reported
in AIR 2012 SC 1, Mrinal Das & Ors Vs. State of Tripura reported
in AIR 2011 SC 3753, DB. Criminal Appeal No. 170/1997 ‘State of
Raj. Vs. Kana Ram. It is submitted that the prosecution has utterly
failed to prove its case and therefore, the learned Trial Court has
rightly acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under
Section 376, 302, 404, 201 IPC.
I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through
the record.
The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and in
the context of circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sharad Biridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra,
: 1984:INSC:121 : 1984 AIR Supreme Court 1622 held as under:-
“152. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against
an accused can be said to be fully established:-
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997]
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should
be proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, : 1973:INSC:151 : (1973)
2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made :-
“certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be
and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and
the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
153. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence. ”
(emphasis supplied)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997]In Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Versus State of Uttar
Pradesh, reported in 2022:INSC:1075 : 2022 AIR Supreme Court
5273, in the context of circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as under:-
“46. Although there can be no straight jacket formula for
appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an
accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court
must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows:
1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought
to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established;
2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be
conclusive in nature;
3. The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a
chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and none else; and
4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should
be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the
circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved.”
47. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that the case
on hand is one of the circumstantial evidence as there was
no eye witness of the occurrence. It is settled principle of law
that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in
cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the prosecution is
able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of
events and circumstances which definitely points towards the
involvement and guilty of the suspect or accused, as the
case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997]
merely because there is no eye witness in the case. It is also
equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of
circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of the
expected principles in that regard.”
In ‘Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer versus The State of
Kerala reported in 2024: INSC:838 : 2024(10) SCC 813′, in the
context of circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held as under:-
“11. Thereafter, the above principles have been reiterated in
the subsequent judgments of this Court and hold the field till
date.
Thus, these basic established principles can be
summarized in the following terms that the chain of events
needs to be so established that the court has no option but
to come to one and only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the
accused person. If an iota of doubt creeps in at any stage in
the sequence of events, the benefit thereof should flow to
the accused. Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of the fact
that it is very strong, cannot be a substitute for a proof. The
chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead
to only one conclusion that is the guilt of the accused. Even
in the case of a conviction where in an appeal the chain of
evidence is found to be not complete or the courts could
reach to any another hypothesis other than the guilt of the
accused, the accused person must be given the benefit of
doubt which obviously would lead to his acquittal. Meaning
thereby, when there is a missing link, a finding of guilt
cannot be recorded. In other words, the onus on the
prosecution is to produce such evidence which conclusively
establishes the truth and the only truth with regard to guilt
of an accused for the charges framed against him or her, and
such evidence should establish a chain of events so complete
as to not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997]consistent with the innocence of accused.”
In the present case, the evidence against the accused
respondent is that of last seen with the deceased, recovery of
ornaments at the instance of accused, recovery of blood/semen
smeared dhoti, hair samples and foot molds at the scene. So far
as the evidence of last seen is concerned, there are no witnesses
to substantiate the prosecution case that the deceased was last
seen with the deceased. So far as the recovery of blood smeared
dhoti, hair samples are concerned, the prosecution has failed to
produce the FSL report in this regard. Similarly, the foot molds
sample were not sent in sealed cover and therefore, could not be
taken to be reliable piece of evidence. From the evidence on
record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears
that the court below came to the conclusion by way of detailed
and speaking order that the prosecution has failed to prove the
charges against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
In the case of ‘Mrinal Das & others v. The State of
Tripura, :2011(9) SCC 479,’ decided on September 5, 2011, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier
judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can
be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only
when there are “compelling and substantial
reasons”,for doing so. If the order is “clearly
unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for
interference. When the trial Court has ignored the
evidence or misread the material evidence or has(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997]ignored material documents like dying
declaration/report of ballistic experts etc.,the appellate
court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial
Court depending on the materials placed.
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram
alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602,’ the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:–
“A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence
of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has
taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in
appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a
view which could not have been taken by the court of
competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled
canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be
reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.”
In the case of State of State of Uttrakhand Vs. Sanjay
Ram Tamta, reported (2025) 2 SCC 159,’ the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:–
“6. Trite is the principle that the appellate courts would
be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially
since the presumption of innocence that is always
available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal
jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the
acquittal and unless there are very substantive and
compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal
of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the
findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible
from the compelling evidence is of guilt; appellate
courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal.
7. Recently, in Surender Singh Vs. State of
Uttrakhand, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997]various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid
down the principle in the following manner in SCC para
24:
24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal
position that the interference with the finding of
acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be
warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same
is based on a misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and 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.”
There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal/
revision against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the
other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no
substantial difference between an appeal/revision against acquittal
except that while dealing with an appeal/revision against acquittal
the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his
acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable
one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well set out on
the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the State has failed to
show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under
challenge. The order passed by the learned trial court is detailed
and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any
interference from this Court.
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997]
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
63-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link