State vs Sumer Singh on 12 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

State vs Sumer Singh on 12 July, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 64/1994

State of Rajasthan
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
Sumer Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, resident of Bhasawa,
District - Jaipur
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)               :   Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s)              :   Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Judgment

Reserved on : 04/07/2025

Pronounced on : 12/07/2025

(Per Sunil Beniwal, J.)

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of

the appellant – State of Rajasthan under Section 378 (iii) & (i)

Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 29.06.1993 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Merta, District Nagour in Sessions Case

No.17/1990, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the

respondent for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC) while extending benefit of doubt.

2. The facts in nutshell, as per the prosecution story in the

present case are that a case was registered on the basis of a

complaint lodged by PW-1 Raghuveer Singh, wherein it was

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (2 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

alleged that on 15/16.11.1989, the accused-respondent

committed the murder of one Madan Singh.

2.1. As per the contents of the FIR dated 16.11.1989, it was

stated by complainant PW-1 Raghuveer Singh that he was

informed by one Satya Narayan and Bhanwar Singh on

16.11.1989 that Madan Singh was killed. This information was

given to him when Madan Singh was about to be cremated. Later,

he went to Police Station whereupon the post mortem was

conducted and police also started investigation.

2.2. The prosecution case is primarily based on circumstantial

evidence, as there was no eye-witness to the incident.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while

arguing the appeal made the following submissions:

3.1 The accused-respondent used a liquor bottle as a weapon to

inflict a head injury upon the deceased Madan Singh, and due to

the said fatal injury, Madan Singh succumbed on the spot.

3.2. PW-6 Heera Lal who deposed that the accused-respondent

made an extra-judicial confession before him admitting that he

had killed Madan Singh. This confession was stated to have been

made in the presence of PW-11 Ram Narayan. It was urged that,

in view of this confession, the learned trial Court ought to have

accepted the prosecution story and have convicted the accused-

respondent for the offence U/s 302 of the IPC.

3.3. The PW-6 Heera Lal, before whom the extra-judicial

confession was made, conveyed the same to PW-22 Satya

Narayan, who attended the funeral of the deceased. Before the

cremation, the information was further conveyed to the brother of

the deceased. As a consequence, the cremation was halted and

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (3 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

PW-1 Raghuveer Singh was sent to inform the police. Thereafter,

the police and medical team reached the spot, conducted the

post-mortem and the body of Madan Singh was cremated.

3.4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence

available on record clearly established that the accused-

respondent and deceased Madan Singh were last seen together.

They consumed liquor together, and had a quarrel over food and

some money. Learned counsel submitted that motive to kill Madan

Singh was very clear and the possession of money was proved as

Madan Singh had gone to the Krishi Mandi to sell agricultural

produce and was having about Rs.10,000/- in his pocket.

3.5. While concluding the arguments, learned State counsel

submitted that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence and

the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of

circumstances/events. The prosecution has led cogent evidence to

prove that the accused-respondent and the deceased Madan Singh

were last seen together before the incident happened and in

addition, there is an extra-judicial confession by the accused-

respondent and a recovery made at his instance makes a clear

case of conviction. It was argued that the learned trial Court failed

to properly appreciate the evidence on record and therefore, the

impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court deserves to

be reversed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha,

appearing for the respondent, submitted that:

4.1. The prosecution has completely failed to establish the guilt of

the accused-respondent. He contended that the prosecution could

neither prove the factum of the extra-judicial confession nor

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (4 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

establish through concrete evidence that the deceased Madan

Singh and the accused-respondent were last seen together.

Furthermore, there was no credible supporting evidence to

suggest that the accused-respondent committed the murder on

account of any motive.

4.2. The alleged recovery of the liquor bottle, claimed to be the

weapon used in the offence was made after a lapse of two months

and that too from an open place. It was stated that the two

recovery witnesses were PW-18 and PW-22. As far as PW-22

Satya Narayan is concerned, he turned hostile during the trial,

whereas the second witness to the recovery proceedings i.e. PW-

18 Chotu Ram deposed that although he witnessed the recovery,

however, neither recovered bottle was sealed nor the site map was

not prepared in his presence. In such circumstances, the recovery

is rendered doubtful and cannot be relied upon to link the

respondent with the alleged offence.

4.3. It is the prosecution’s case that PW-6 Heera Lal informed

PW-22 Satya Narayan about the extra-judicial confession made by

the respondent. Satya Narayan further told the fact to the brother

of the deceased and despite the complainant having knowledge of

this fact, the name of the accused-respondent was conspicuously

absent from the FIR which casts serious doubt on the veracity of

the prosecution story and indicates that the narrative is an

afterthought and has been concocted subsequently.

4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial

Court has thoroughly appreciated the evidence available on record

and rightly concluded that neither the extra-judicial confession nor

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (5 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

the “last seen together” theory was convincingly established by

the prosecution.

4.5. PW-6 Heera Lal and Ram Narayan PW-11 have been

considered as most important witnesses, but their statements

suffer from serious contradictions, particularly regarding the “last

seen” aspect, so as to establish the guilt of the accused

respondent.

4.6. PW-23 Dr. Kamal Bajaj, who opined that if a person is heavily

intoxicated and falls under such circumstances, it could lead to

cerebral hemorrhage and concussion of the brain. Thus, the

medical evidence does not conclusively point to a homicidal death.

4.7. It was also submitted that the allegation of absconding by

the accused-respondent post-incident is not borne out by the

evidence on record. PW-9 Anandi Lal deposed that the respondent

was on duty on 15.11.1989 till 4:00 PM and returned the next

day, i.e., 16.11.1989 at 10:45 AM. Similarly, PW-26 Naveen

Chaturvedi testified that the respondent was on sanctioned leave.

Hence, the allegation of abscondence immediately after incident is

unfounded and without merit.

4.8. Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that the learned trial Court, after a

comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence available on

record, has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent. The findings

recorded are well-reasoned and do not suffer from any legal

infirmity. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned

judgment and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (6 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

6. It is true that the present case is based entirely on

circumstantial evidence. In support of its case, the prosecution

examined 29 witnesses, produced 18 documents, and exhibited

two articles. Out of the said witnesses, the most material

witnesses whose statements are required to be considered are:

PW-1 Raghuveer Singh (complainant), PW-2 Ram Lal (salesman at

the liquor shop), PW-3 Gopal Singh (brother of PW-28 Arjun

Singh), PW-6 Heera Lal (alleged witness to the extra-judicial

confession), PW-11 Ram Narayan (bus driver and another witness

to the said extra-judicial confession), PW-22 Satya Narayan (the

first person informed about the confession), PW-28 Arjun Singh

(present at the liquor shop prior to the incident), and PW-23 Dr.

Kamal Bajaj (medical expert). These witnesses are of particular

significance in the context of the circumstantial evidence forming

the basis of the prosecution story.

7. The single injury which resulted in the death of the deceased

Madan Singh was a head injury and as per the prosecution story

the injury was caused by the liquor bottle. It is evident from the

record that the alleged bottle was recovered at the instance of the

accused-respondent after a lapse of two months from the date of

the incident, and that too from an open space. In order to

examine whether the prosecution has successfully established the

recovery of the alleged weapon, the statements of two material

witnesses PW-22 Satya Narayan and PW-18 Chotu Ram are first

considered.

7.1 PW-22 Satya Narayan, who was projected as a key witness

to the recovery, deposed that although a bottle was recovered in

his presence following the arrest of the accused-respondent, the

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (7 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

bottle shown to him in Court was broken, whereas the one

recovered in his presence was intact. As such, he could not

confirm that the bottle exhibited in Court was the same as the one

recovered. Consequently, he was declared hostile.

7.2 The other witness to the recovery, PW-18 Chotu Ram, stated

that the bottle was recovered at the instance of the accused

Sumer Singh. However, he was unable to confirm whether the

recovered bottle was sealed in his presence. Furthermore, he did

not assert that any site plan was prepared in his presence.

7.3 In light of such conflicting and inconsistent statements, it

cannot be said that the prosecution has successfully proved the

recovery of the weapon i.e. the liquor bottle allegedly used in the

commission of the offence.

8. As regards the alleged extra-judicial confession of the

accused-respondent, it is noted that PW-6 Heera Lal deposed that

the accused-respondent told Ram Narayan to convey to Heera Lal

that he had killed Madan Singh. PW-11 Ram Narayan has not

supported the version as stated by PW-6 Heera Lal, wherein it was

alleged that upon the accused making such a statement, Ram

Narayan laughed. Furthermore, the assertion made by PW-6 Heera

Lal that the accused-respondent confessed to having killed Madan

Singh is also not supported by the testimony of PW-11 Ram

Narayan.

8.1. Additionally, the statements of PW-22 Satya Narayan and

PW-27 Narayan were examined with a view to ascertain the

veracity of the alleged extra-judicial confession. However, both

these witnesses have turned hostile, thereby rendering their

testimonies unreliable. In light of the contradictory testimonies of

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (8 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

PW-6 Heera Lal and PW-11 Ram Narayan and the unreliability of

PW-22 Satya Narayan and PW-27 Narayan, it cannot be said with

certainty that the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond

reasonable doubt, that the accused-respondent made a voluntary

extra-judicial confession admitting his guilt before PW-6 Heera Lal

and PW-11 Ram Narayan.

9. Learned counsel for the State has fervently contended that

the prosecution has successfully connected each link in the chain

of circumstances, thereby establishing a complete and unbroken

chain of events which conclusively points to the guilt of the

respondent-accused and proves that it was he who committed the

murder of the deceased Madan Singh.

10. In the present case, certain facts remain undisputed, notably

that the dead body of Madan Singh was found in the morning near

the cremation ground and graveyard. The dead body was seen by

several witnesses who have been examined before the Court.

11. PW-2 Ram Lal, in his testimony, stated that he was employed

as a salesman at the liquor shop. On the date of the incident, he

was present at the shop when the accused-respondent Sumer

Singh, along with one Sharma and Heera Kumar, arrived there. At

that time, PW-28 Arjun Singh was already present at the shop and

was consuming liquor. According to PW-2 Ram Lal, a discussion

ensued regarding the price of liquor. Sumer Singh objected to

liquor being sold to Madan Singh at a lower rate while he was

being charged a higher price. This led to a verbal altercation.

Thereafter, Sumer Singh consumed liquor and subsequently

Madan Singh also arrived. All of them then proceeded to the house

of PW-3 Gopal Singh. PW-2 Ram Lal thereafter closed the shop

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (9 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

and went for dinner. He later came back and reopened the shop

and thereafter Madan Singh again came and asked for liquor. After

being served, Sumer Singh and Sharma also arrived. Sumer Singh

allegedly told Madan Singh that half a bottle would not serve the

purpose and insisted on a full bottle of liquor, however, Madan

Singh refused. It is alleged that at this point, Sumer Singh

grabbed Madan Singh by the collar, following which PW-2 Ram Lal

intervened and directed them to leave the liquor shop. Thereafter,

they all went to the shop of PW-6 Heera Lal.

12. The testimony of PW-2 Ram Lal, at best, establishes that

both Sumer Singh and Madan Singh consumed liquor on the date

of the incident and had a minor altercation. However, it does not

indicate the existence of any serious motive or provocation that

could lead Sumer Singh to commit the murder of Madan Singh.

13. The statements of PW-3 Gopal Singh and PW-28 Arjun Singh

were also examined. Although their testimonies establish that the

deceased Madan Singh and the accused Sumer Singh were seen

together, the versions given by these two witnesses materially

differ from the statements furnished by PW-6 Heera Lal and

PW-11 Ram Narayan.

14. As per the testimony of PW-11 Ram Narayan, both the

deceased Madan Singh, Narayan Lal and the accused Sumer Singh

were having oral altercation and were using foul words against

each other. He further states that there was quarrel between

Heera Lal and Sumer Singh on Heera Lal refusing to make food

available. PW-11 Ram Narayan further stated that all three namely

Sumer Singh (accused), Madan Singh and Narayan Lal were

intoxicated. According to him, Heera Lal took Madan Singh to his

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (10 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

house so that he could sleep, and thereafter, Madan Singh did not

return. PW-11 further stated that after Heera Lal left with Madan

Singh and he was unaware of when Heera Lal returned. He also

deposed that subsequent to Heera Lal’s departure, the accused

Sumer Singh and he (Ram Narayan) went to sleep together, and

after 9:20 PM, Sumer Singh did not go anywhere and remained

asleep.

15. On the other hand, PW-6 Heera Lal deposed that after he

had gone to sleep, Sumer Singh came to him around 1:00 AM and

asked for food. When he refused, Sumer Singh asked him to

accompany him to the shop. On his insistence, he eventually

followed Sumer Singh and thereafter Sumer Singh in presence of

PW-11 Ram Narayan said that you convey to Heera Lal that he has

killed Madan Singh.

16. The version of PW-11 Ram Narayan is entirely contradictory

to that of PW-6 Heera Lal. Similarly, the testimonies of other

prosecution witnesses also do not support the “last seen together”

theory as sought to be established by the prosecution.

17. Learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence of

the witnesses in an attempt to establish the chain of

circumstances. However, in view of the contradictory statements

discussed above, the “last seen together” theory as sought to be

propounded by the prosecution was not established. Consequently,

in the absence of a complete dots being connected, the accused

cannot be held guilty.

18. As far as the alleged motive for committing the offence is

concerned, it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that

the deceased Madan Singh had gone to the Krishi Mandi on the

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (11 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

same day to sell agricultural produce and was carrying a sum of

₹10,000/- in his pocket. In support of this, the purchaser (PW-17

Jagdish Prasad) of the agricultural produce was examined and a

receipt said to have been recovered from the pocket of the

deceased was also exhibited as Ex.P/6. However, none of the

witnesses supported the prosecution story to the extent of

establishing a motive for the murder of Madan Singh on account of

the said money.

19. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any serious dispute

having arisen between Madan Singh and Sumer Singh that could

have provoked Sumer Singh to take the drastic step of killing

Madan Singh. As per the evidence available on record, there was

an oral altercation between Heera Lal and Sumer Singh at one

point in time, and there is also evidence of an oral altercation

between Sumer Singh and Madan Singh. It is also a fact that, on

the intervening night of 15/16.11.1989, Sumer Singh, Madan

Singh, and Narayan Lal were intoxicated. In view of the above

factual circumstances, the prosecution could not establish its case

and connect all the dots to finally conclude that it was the Sumer

Singh who had murdered Madan Singh on the intervening night of

15.11.1989.

19.1 What emerges from the evidence is that there was

merely a heated argument and quarrel regarding the rate of liquor

and whether to purchase half or full bottle. Thus, the prosecution

has failed to prove that the accused had any motive to kill Madan

Singh over the alleged money. Learned trial Court, therefore,

rightly concluded that the motive, as alleged by the prosecution,

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (12 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

was not established so as to hold the respondent-accused guilty

for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

20. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the

conduct of the respondent-accused in absconding on the next day

of the incident, i.e., 16.11.1989, indicated guilt. However, upon

examination of the evidence, this contention is found to be

baseless, as there is clear evidence on record to show that Sumer

Singh went on duty on the next date and was later on medical

leave. Hence, the allegation of absconding also remains unproved.

21. It is undisputed that the present is a case of circumstantial

evidence and thus the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State

of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] have to be established to

prove guilt on basis of circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Apex

Court while discussing the said principles in the recent case of

Nusrat Parween Vs. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2025 SC 105)

observed as under:

“7. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence
that conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely
on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is
deemed credible and trustworthy. In cases involving
circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts
leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and
that all the established facts point irrefutably to the Accused
person’s guilt. The chain of incriminating circumstances must
be conclusive and should exclude any hypothesis other than
the guilt of the Accused. In other words, from the chain of
incriminating circumstances, no reasonable doubt can be
entertained about the Accused person’s innocence,
demonstrating that it was the Accused and none other who
committed the offence. The law with regard to conviction
based on circumstantial evidence has been crystalised by
this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State
of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein it was held:

153. A close analysis of this decision would
show that the following conditions must be

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (13 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

fulfilled before a case against an Accused can be
said to be fully established:

(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 Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807]
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.”

21.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court while elaborating the principles

in the cases of acquittal on basis of lack of circumstantial evidence

in the case of Sangappa Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal

Appeal No.1715/2017; decided on 27.02.2025) observed as

under:

“19. The High Court labelled the Trial Court’s
appreciation as “perverse” but, on closer inspection,
we see that the Trial Court took a “possible view” of
the evidence, one that carefully noted the lack of
consistent last-seen evidence, the unreliability of
key witnesses, and the failure to prove recoveries

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (14 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

conclusively. In cases of circumstantial evidence,
where the prosecution must prove each link in the
chain beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellate
courts should exercise extreme caution before
reversing an acquittal. It is a fundamental judicial
principle that the presumption of innocence,
coupled with the benefit of doubt, should not be
lightly set aside, and any interference with an
acquittal is warranted only where the trial court’s
findings are patently erroneous or manifestly
unjust.”

21.2. In the present case, as discussed above, the

prosecution has neither been able to prove motive nor ‘last seen

theory’ as there are serious contradictions in the statements of

witnesses. Further, the statements of PW-6 Heera Lal who has

been regarded as the most essential witness to prove the extra-

judicial confession of the accused, has serious contradictions with

statements of PW-11 Ram Narayan. Furthermore, PW-22 Satya

Narayan who was the key witness in the prosecution story turned

hostile. Hence, keeping into the consideration the principles

crystallized by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it cannot conclusively be

observed that it is no one but accused who has committed murder

of the deceased when the chain of circumstantial evidence is

incomplete, also considering that the factum of accused

absconding after the incident also remains unproved.

22. 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 & Ors. Vs. State of

Karnataka (AIR 2024 SC 1252) and Babu Sahebagouda

Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 2024 SC

2252), as hereunder-:

Mallappa & Ors. (Supra):

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (15 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

“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 Rudragoudar 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 CrPC 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 reappreciating 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

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (16 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

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.”

23. Learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment of

acquittal of the accused-respondents under Section 302 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 analyzed 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.

24. 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 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

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29311-DB] (17 of 17) [CRLA-64/1994]

aforementioned judgment, and thus, on that count also, the

impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the

instant appeal.

25. Learned trial Court has meticulously considered all relevant

aspects, including motive, circumstantial evidence, the alleged

extra-judicial confession and the accusation of absconding and

upon a comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence, rightly

held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond

reasonable doubt.

26. 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 precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit

case warranting any interference by this Court.

27. This Court has independently examined the evidence on

record and finds no error in the impugned judgment on any of the

grounds raised by the appellant in the present appeal.

28. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

29. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

Ashutosh-1

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 08:32:03 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)