[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Panna Ram And Ors on 10 July, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 447/2009
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Panna Ram S/o Kala Ram
2. Chautha Ram S/o Kala Ram
3. Kushala Ram S/o Kala Ram
4. Smt. Gawari W/o Kala Ram
5. Indra Ram S/o Kala Ram
6. Smt. Maravo W/o Indra Ram
7. Aamba Ram S/o Uka Ram
8. Hema Ram S/o Indra Ram
[All b/c Bhil, r/o Madhopura, P.S. Sankada, Jaisalmer]
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Devasi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chirag Khatri
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
(per Hon’ble Beniwal,J.)
Reserved on : 03/07/2025
Pronounced on : 10/07/2025
1. The appellant-State has laid challenge to the judgment and
order dated 03.04.2006 passed by the learned District & Sessions
Judge, Jaisalmer, in Sessions Case No.26/2005, by which the
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (2 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
learned trial Court acquitted the respondents-accused from the
offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. The facts in brief are that on 17.05.2025, the complainant,
Nakhta Ram, submitted a report to the S.H.O. of P.S. Sankada
alleging, inter alia, that the marriage of his sister, Smt. Rukma
(since deceased), was solemnized with accused-respondent No. 1,
Panna Ram, about 14 years ago. The relationship between them
remained harmonious for about 10 years; thereafter, illicit
relations developed between the accused-respondent No. 1 and
the wife of Indra Ram (accused-respondent No. 5). This came to
the knowledge of his sister, and when she complained about it,
she was told to keep silent or face threats to her life. When his
sister narrated this to their mother and other family members, a
panchayat meeting was convened. However, the accused-
respondent again threatened to kill his sister. On 14.04.2005,
when he and his cousin brother Gokala ram were present at their
sister’s in-laws’ house, they heard noise around midnight. Upon
hearing such noise, they got up and came out and saw that the
accused-respondents were beating their sister. Accused-
respondent No. 2, Chautha Ram, struck her on the head with an
axe; accused-respondent No. 1, Panna Ram, inflicted a sword
blow, while three other women held her down, causing her to fall.
When they tried to intervene, they were threatened with death
and fled barefoot, traveling about 50-60 kilometers to reach their
village. Thereafter, family members gathered, and on 16.04.2005,
they went to their sister’s in-laws’ house. When they inquired
about the deceased, they were told that she had died due to
illness and that her last rites had been performed.
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (3 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
2.1 Upon this report, the police registered a case and after
investigation, filed a chargesheet under Sections 302 and 201 of
the IPC against accused-respondent No. 1, and under Section 201
of the IPC against the remaining accused-respondents, thereby
commencing the trial.
2.2 The learned trial Court, after hearing, framed charges under
Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against accused-respondent No.
1, Panna Ram, and under Section 201 of the IPC against the other
accused-respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
2.3 The prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses and
exhibited relevant documents. Thereafter, the accused-
respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and
exhibited documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/6.
2.4 The learned trial Court, after trial, acquitted the accused-
respondents by the impugned judgment and order dated
03.04.2006. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has challenged the
acquittal of the accused-respondents on the following grounds:-
(i) The learned trial Court committed a grave error in failing to
appreciate the fact that PW-1 Nakhta Ram and PW-2 Gokala Ram
were eyewitnesses who saw the incident in which their sister, the
deceased Rukma, was murdered by the respondent-accused.
(ii) The extra-judicial confession made by Chautha Ram was not
considered trustworthy by the trial Court, although such a
statement was made in the presence of 5-6 persons.
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (4 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
(iii) The circumstances under which the deceased was burnt after
being killed in the house of the accused are sufficient to establish
the guilt of the accused-respondents.
(iv) The fact that on 3-4 previous occasions, panchayat meetings
were held to resolve the dispute between accused-respondent No.
1 Panna Ram and the deceased Rukma, this fact was also
established by witnesses, however, the same was disregarded by
the learned trial Court, which instead gave the benefit of the
doubt to the accused-respondents.
(v) The accused-respondents’ failure to inform the deceased’s
parents prior to her funeral itself creates serious suspicion.
Further, coupled with the fact that the incident occurred in the
presence of PW-1 Nakhta Ram and PW-2 Gokala Ram, it clearly
establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-
respondents are guilty of committing an offence under Section 302
of the IPC. Therefore, the learned trial Court committed a serious
error by not properly appreciating the evidence and by treating
the prosecution’s case as untrustworthy; thus, the impugned order
is liable to be reversed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-
respondents submitted that the learned trial Court passed the
impugned judgment after duly considering the entire evidence
available on record. It was submitted that the trial Court rightly
concluded that PW-1 Nakhta Ram and PW-2 Gokala Ram were not
present at the time of the incident. While recording this finding,
the Court considered the surrounding circumstances as well as the
omissions and contradictions in the statements of the aforesaid
witnesses.
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (5 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
4.1 It was further argued that, in fact, there was no eyewitness
to the incident, and therefore, the prosecution completely failed to
complete chain of events that could hold the accused-respondents
guilty. The extra-judicial confession made by Chautha Ram was
also not found trustworthy by the trial Court, and rightly so.
According to the prosecution, the confession was made in the
presence of 5-6 persons while they were returning from
Ramdeora and had halted at a petrol pump. However, some of the
witnesses stated that they went for Ramdeora Darshan soon after
the incident on 22.04.2005, while one of the witnesses claimed
that they went to Ramdeora about one and a half months after the
incident. Some witnesses stated they heard Chautha Ram admit
his guilt, while others stated they could not hear anything as they
were sitting in the car. Additionally, some witnesses further
exaggerated the story by claiming that they saw Chautha Ram
touch the feet of Chutra Ram while confessing his guilt. Thus,
there were serious contradictions regarding the timeline and
circumstances of the alleged confession.
4.2 The learned counsel for the respondents also placed
significant reliance on the testimony of PW-20 Dana Ram, who is
the son of the deceased. It was submitted that, according to the
prosecution itself, Dana Ram was present at the time of the
incident, and in his statement, he clearly deposed that his mother
died due to illness and that none of the accused-respondents were
present when the incident occurred. He further stated that his
mother collapsed and died on the spot.
4.3 It was further emphasized by the learned counsel for the
accused-respondents that PWs 4, 5, 10 to 17, 19, 20 and 23 to 26
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (6 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
turned hostile, which rendered the entire prosecution case
doubtful.
4.4 The recovery of a lathi also failed to support the
prosecution’s version, as PW-1 Nakhta Ram and PW-2 Gokala Ram
had clearly stated that the accused-respondents, Panna Ram and
Chautha Ram, who allegedly caused injuries, were armed with an
axe and a sword. Therefore, the recovery of a lathi at the instance
of Panna Ram appears to be a fabricated story. On this count as
well, the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable
doubt.
4.5 Learned counsel for the accused-respondents placed reliance
upon the following judgments:-
(i) Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2024 SC 1678]
(ii) Sekaran Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2024 SC
397]
(iii) Laxman Prasad Vs. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC
Online SC 743]
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment and record.
6. According to the prosecution, the entire case hinges on the
statements of PW-1 Nakhta Ram and PW-2 Gokala Ram, who are
claimed to be eyewitnesses to the incident. PW-1 Nakhta Ram is
the real brother of the deceased, Rukma, while PW-2 Gokala Ram
is her first cousin. Upon perusal of the statement of PW-1 Nakhta
Ram, it is revealed that he stated that blood-stained soil, ash, and
blood-stained cotton were recovered on the same day in the
presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. While narrating
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (7 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
the incident, he also stated that after the occurrence, they
traveled on foot for about 50-60 kilometers to reach their village,
Kitta, on the night of 14.04.2005, and that they arrived there in
the evening of 15.04.2005. However, PW-7 Jassu Ram stated that
they reached the village at 9:00 a.m. that morning, thus creating
a contradiction. PW-1 further stated that he, along with other
family members, went to the police station to lodge an FIR, but it
was not registered. Subsequently, they approached Advocate
Chandan Singh to seek legal advice.
6.1 On the other hand, PW-2 Gokala Ram, though narrating the
incident in almost the same manner as PW-1, presents some
serious contradictions. While recounting the incident, he stated
that when they reached the spot where the accused-respondents
were beating the deceased Rukma, their clothes became stained
with blood as they attempted to intervene. Additionally, he
exaggerated the story and stated that when he and Nakhta Ram
tried to intervene, they were threatened by accused-respondents
Panna Ram and Chautha Ram, who warned them to leave or be
killed. In cross-examination, he further stated that Panna Ram
and Chautha Ram even attempted to chase them on a motorcycle,
but they managed to escape into the forest. There is also a
contradiction regarding who wrote the report. PW-1 Nakhta Ram
stated that the report was written by Jassa Ram, whereas PW-2
Gokala Ram claimed it was written by Kanwar Ram. He further
deposed that he, along with others, went to the police station to
register the FIR; however, he clearly stated that they did not meet
Advocate Chandan Singh, which is contrary version to what was
stated by PW-1 Nakhta Ram. A perusal of these statements clearly
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (8 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
reveals significant contradictions in the narration of the incident,
the conduct of the accused persons toward the witnesses when
they tried to intervene, their alleged meeting with the advocate,
and the authorship of the report. The two Investigating Officers,
namely, Kalyan Singh and Ramveer, who conducted investigation
in the matter, were also examined as PW-18 and PW-29
respectively. Both have reached to the conclusion that PW-1
Nakhta Ram and PW-2 Gokala Ram were not present at the time
of incident.
6.2 Apart from the serious contradictions in the statements of
PW-1 Nakhta Ram and PW-2 Gokala Ram, their conduct after the
incident is also noteworthy. According to these witnesses, their
village, Kitta, is located about 50-60 kilometers away, while the
police station was only 8-10 kilometers from the place of
occurrence. Their explanation that they chose not to go to the
police station but instead walked back to their village because
they were in shock after witnessing the incident appears highly
improbable under the given circumstances. Moreover, despite PW-
1 Nakhta Ram being familiar with residents living near the house
of accused Panna Ram, he did not inform any of them. Instead,
both witnesses allegedly walked the entire distance of 50-60
kilometers to their village without informing the police or anyone
nearby.
7. The presence of the aforesaid two witnesses becomes highly
doubtful in light of the statement made by PW-20 Dana Ram, the
son of the deceased. Although a minor aged 15 years, he
categorically stated that neither PW-1 Nakhta Ram nor PW-2
Gokala Ram (both maternal uncles “Mama”), nor any of the
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (9 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
accused-respondents, were present at the time of the incident. In
view of such evidence on record and upon consideration of the
overall circumstances, it cannot be conclusively held that PW-1
Nakhta Ram and PW-2 Gokala Ram actually witnessed the
incident. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly disbelieved the
presence of these witnesses.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant placed heavy reliance on
the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused-
respondent Chautha Ram before the family members of the
deceased, while they were returning from Ramdeora on
22.05.2005. It is alleged that when they met Chautha Ram at a
petrol pump, he, in the presence of the deceased’s family
members, admitted his own guilt as well as the guilt of the other
accused persons. He purportedly pleaded that, instead of taking
legal action against them, they were ready to accept their guilt
and any punishment the panchayat might impose.
8.1 However, when this story of extra-judicial confession is
examined in light of the witnesses’ statements produced by the
prosecution, it becomes clear that the claim lacks a solid
evidentiary foundation. For instance, PW-7 Jassu Ram testified
that he went to Ramdeora about one and a half months after the
death of the deceased Rukma, whereas other witnesses claimed
the visit occurred on 22.05.2005, i.e., approximately 7-8 days
after the incident.
8.2 Furthermore, PW-7 Jassu Ram admitted during cross-
examination that the conversation regarding the alleged extra-
judicial confession made by Chautha Ram to Chutra Ram to be an
attempt to strengthen the prosecution’s case. The allegation of
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (10 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
extra-judicial confession is also not supported by Surta Ram (PW-
8), who was among those traveling back from Ramdeora. He
testified that he could not even recognize Chautha Ram. Similarly,
PW-9 Shiv Dan Ram stated that he did not hear any conversation,
yet inconsistently claimed that he saw Chautha Ram touching the
feet of Chutra Ram.
8.3 Though PW-22 Luna Ram stated that he had heard the extra-
judicial confession made by Chautha Ram in the presence of
Sugna Ram, Surja Ram, and Jassu Ram, the versions of Surta
Ram and Jassu Ram are inconsistent with and do not fully support
Luna Ram’s version.
8.4 In view of the conflicting statements regarding the date of
the Ramdeora visit and the identities of those who allegedly heard
the confession, it is evident that there are serious contradictions in
the prosecution’s narrative. As such, the alleged extra-judicial
confession of Chautha Ram cannot be deemed reliable, and no
conclusion could validly have been drawn based on such
inconsistent and doubtful evidence.
9. The prosecution also failed to establish the guilt of the
accused-respondents, as the only eyewitness to the incident, PW-
20 Dana Ram, turned hostile. Moreover, the other supporting
witnesses for the prosecution, namely, PWs 4, 5, 10 to 17, 19, and
23 to 26, also turned hostile. As a result, the entire prosecution
case became doubtful. In light of such an unreliable and
inconsistent prosecution narrative, the learned trial Court rightly
proceeded to acquit the accused-respondents, as the prosecution
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (11 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
10. With regard to the recovery of the lathi, it was allegedly
recovered at the instance of accused-respondent Panna Ram.
However, the witnesses to the said recovery namely PW-10 Chuna
Ram and PW-11 Deva Ram, stated that the lathi, ashes, and
blood-stained cotton were not recovered in their presence. They
also disclosed that they were working as daily wagers at the police
station at the relevant time. PW-11 further stated that Exhibits 6
and 9 to 12 were not prepared in his presence. In view of the
above, the alleged recovery is not supported by any of the
prosecution witnesses nor was it shown to have been made in
their presence by the investigating authority. Moreover, the
version of the recovery as narrated by PW-1 Nakhta Ram cannot
be accepted as credible, as his very presence at the scene of
occurrence at the relevant time stands disbelieved. Additionally,
his account of the recovery does not correspond with the actual
recovery effected, thereby rendering the recovery unsupported by
any credible prosecution witness.
11. PW-1 Nakhta Ram stated that there was a clear motive
behind the incident, as accused-respondent Panna Ram was
allegedly having an illicit relationship with the wife of his brother,
Indra Ram. The deceased, Rukma, was reportedly upset by this
and had frequent quarrels and disputes with Panna Ram over the
matter. According to the prosecution, it was for this reason that
the accused persons jointly decided to eliminate Rukma.
11.1 Although this allegation may suggest a strained relationship
between Panna Ram and Rukma, the fact that Indra Ram
supported the accused persons clearly indicates that the allegation
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (12 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
may have been introduced merely to establish a motive. In
ordinary circumstances, it is unlikely that a person would support
a narrative involving an allegation of an illicit relationship
concerning his own wife.
11.2 Therefore, the prosecution’s claim that the accused had a
motive and intent to kill the deceased is also not fully established.
12. Upon considering the evidence available on record, as well as
the reasons given by the learned trial Court for acquitting the
accused-respondents, this Court does not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court has
properly appreciated the evidence from the correct perspective
and rightly concluded that the prosecution has completely failed to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
13. The prosecution cases hinges upon the testimonies of PW-1
Nakhta Ram and PW-2 Gokala Ram, who were examined as eye-
witnesses of the incident and also relied upon the extra-judicial
confession made by Chautha Ram before 5-6 persons. From the
discussion made above, it is clear that the said witnesses, i.e. PW-
1 Nakhta Ram and PW-2 Gokala Ram, were not found to be
present at the place of occurrence so also the said extra-judicial
confession was also not found reliable and no conclusion could
have been drawn based on such extra-judicial confession. Thus,
the prosecution has utterly failed to complete the chain of events
to prove guilt of the accused-respondents beyond reasonable
doubt.
14. 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 cases of Mallappa and Ors. Vs. State of
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (13 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
Karnataka : (2024) 3 SCC 544 and Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal
Appeal No.985/2010, decided on 19.04.2024), as under:-
Mallappa & Ors (supra):
“36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be
summarized as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal
trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all
evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a
miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view,
mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of
acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in
appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically
address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and
must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error
of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoundar and Ors(supra):
“38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the
principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of
Cr.P.C. as follows:
‘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 reappreciate 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;
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (14 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
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.
39. 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 accused has
to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles :
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider
material evidence on record; (c) 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.”
15. The learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of
acquittal of the accused-respondents under Sections 302 and 201
of IPC, which in the given circumstances, 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 witnesses at a
considerable length and duly analysed the documents produced
before it, coupled with examination of the oral as well as
documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned judgment suffers
from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any
interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
16. The scope of interference in the
acquittal order passed by the learned trial Court is very limited,
and if the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28846-DB] (15 of 15) [CRLA-447/2009]
demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a
contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, and
thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no
interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
17. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into
the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the
aforementioned decisions, this Court does not find it a fit case
warranting any interference by this Court.
18. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
19. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
(Section 481 BNSS), the accused-respondents are directed to
furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and a surety
bond in the like amount, before the learned Trial Court, which shall
be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in
the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment
or for grant of leave, the accused-appellant, on receipt of notice
thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as
they would be called upon to do so.
20. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
skm/-
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:42:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link