Appeal by State of Rajasthan
2. The appellant-State of Rajasthan has filed these appeals assailing the common final judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011, passed by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 95 of 2008, 122 of 2008, and 166 of 2008 filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 by the accused-respondents herein against the judgment and order dated 10th January, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.3 of 2006, whereby the accused-respondents had been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B, 143 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were sentenced as below: –
a. Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC: Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three months.
b. Section 143 IPC: Simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
c. Section 201 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month.
High Court Division Bench set aside the conviction
3. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide the common impugned judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011, allowed the individual criminal appeals preferred by each of the accused respondents and set aside their conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court and acquitted them of the charges by extending them the benefit of doubt on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and patent infirmities in the prosecution case.
Case of prosecution
Man missing case: 5. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 23rd January, 2006, Navneet Sharma (PW15)5 lodged a missing report at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur at 12:40 P.M. alleging that his father Shri Suresh Sharma had gone missing. It was stated in the missing person report that Shri Suresh Sharma had some ongoing disputes with Vijay Punia and Gokalram pertaining to the lands situated in the village Nandri District, Jodhpur. On 21st January, 2006, a telephone call made by a property dealer was received on the landline number at the complainant’s residence at Luhar Colony, Paota, and the same was attended by Shri Suresh Sharma who conveyed to the caller that he would be visiting the subject site on the next day. On the following day, Shri Suresh Sharma left his house at about 6:00 P.M. to visit the agricultural fields located at the Village Banad, however, he did not return, and no information was forthcoming regarding his whereabouts. On the morning of 23rd January, 2006, the complainant-Navneet (PW-15) was informed by Dhanna Ram (PW-11) that while he was sitting at the shop of Ratanlal, he had seen Shri Suresh Sharma proceeding towards Banad. A missing person case was registered, and inquiry was assigned to Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.
Message received of a human body: 6. While the action upon the missing person report was being contemplated, a message was received at the Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur at about 12:50 P.M. regarding the discovery of a human dead body lying between villages Jajiwal Gahlotan and Jajiwal Bhatiyan.
Hands of the deceased were tied behind: 7. Upon receiving this information, the complainant-Navneet (PW-15) immediately rushed to the spot along with the police personnel and found the dead body of his father Shri Suresh Sharma lying on the ground. The police personnel from the Police Station Dangiawas were present at the spot in advance. The complainant-Navneet (PW15) noticed that the hands of the deceased-Shri Suresh had been tied behind his back with an iron wire, and his legs had been fastened with help of a piece of cloth. One shoe was missing and there were visible signs of efforts made to efface the identity by crushing the face. The neck was inflamed with red marks.
FIR registered: 8. Pursuant to recovery of the dead body, FIR No. 7 of 2006 came to be registered at the Police Station Dangiyawas at the instance of the complainantNavneet (PW-15) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The usual course of investigation was undertaken. The dead body was subjected to inquest proceedings and subsequently forwarded to the hospital for postmortem examination.
Post-mortem injuries (20) and strangulation: 9. The Medical Board, comprising Dr. V.K. Malhotra (PW-23), Dr. Yogiraj and Dr. Rajesh Vyas, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased-Shri Suresh and issued the postmortem report (Exh. P35) taking note of about 20 injuries on the dead body, and the cause of death was opined to be antemortem strangulation.
Accused/respondents were arrested: 10. The accused-respondents were arrested, and upon conclusion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be submitted against them under Section 173 (2) CrPC for offences punishable under Section 302, 201 and 120-B IPC.
Charges framed and denied: 12. The accused-respondents denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 37 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-37) and exhibited 102 documents (Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-102) along with 29 articles (Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-29) to prove its case.
Section 313 Cr.P.C: 13. Upon being examined under Section 313 CrPC, and when asked to explain the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, the accused-respondents claimed to be innocent and alleged to have been falsely implicated. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.
Trial court held guilty: 14. Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused-respondents guilty of charges and proceeded to convict and sentence them as mentioned above vide judgment and order dated 10th January, 2008.
Analysis
Trial court relied the disclosure document made by the accused pertaining to motive
17. For drawing an inference pertaining to motive, the trial Court relied upon the document (Exh. P-70) which was a disclosure made by respondentHemlata about the situs of the crime. Manifestly, the use of the said document was limited to the extent permitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18728, and inculpatory narrative recited therein could not have been used to draw any inference regarding motive, which was required to be established from substantive evidence.
Complainant stated that no dispute or tension between the deceased and accused
18. Be that as it may, we may note that the complainant-Navneet (PW-15), in unequivocal terms stated that the deceased-Shri Suresh and respondent-Hemlata were maintaining good relations and there was no dispute or tension between them. The witness (PW-15) denied having knowledge about any kind of exploitation or victimisation of respondent-Hemlata by his father.
Prosecution did not produce relevant call detail records supported by certificate under section 65-B IEA
21. It may be noted that neither Meena Sharma (PW-24) nor Meenkashi (PW-27) had any idea about the identity of the person who made this call who was admittedly a stranger to them. These ladies did not claim to have ever met the caller before. Rather, we find that there is no substantive evidence whatsoever on record to prove that any person by the name Dhanesh, alleged to be the brother of respondent-Hemlata, had actually called on the landline number operational in the house of the deceased-Shri Suresh. If at all, the prosecution was desirous to prove this fact, the relevant call detail records supported by the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act had to be brought on record and proved as per law. However, this evidence is totally lacking from the side of the prosecution.
PW-8 did not state to I.O about the presence of deceased near the house of the accused
23. Hukum Singh (PW-8) was employed with Dharmender Singh (PW-20) and was also an attesting witness to the inquest memo (Exh. P-9) that was drawn on 23rd January, 2006, after discovery of the dead body of Shri Suresh Sharma. Dharmender Singh (PW-20), an electrician by occupation, deposed on oath that on 22nd January, 2006, at about 06:30 P.M. to 07:00 P.M., he and his assistant Hukum Singh (PW-8) saw the deceasedShri Suresh parking his scooter in front of respondent-Hemlata’s house. However, neither of the witnesses stated that they had actually seen the deceased-Shri Suresh entering the house of respondent-Hemlata. In addition, it is a matter of record that Hukum Singh (PW-8) divulged this information to the police on 28th February, 2006, i.e., after one month and six days from the date of occurrence. The fact regarding the presence of the deceased-Shri Suresh near the house of respondentHemlata just before his death was far too important so as to have escaped the memory of the said witness. If at all, Hukum Singh (PW-8) had seen any such event, he would not be expected to remain silent and, in natural course, he would have promptly disclosed about this important circumstance to the police officials when he signed the inquest memo (Exh. P-9) on 23rd January, 2006.
Not disclosing important fact to the police assumes great importance and highly suspicious
24. The failure of the witness (PW-8) in not disclosing this important fact to the police for almost one month and six days of the incident assumes great importance because he was amongst the first few to have seen the dead body of the deceased-Shri Suresh immediately after its discovery. The High Court held that the fact pertaining to the movement of the deceased-Shri Suresh near the house of respondents-Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary few hours prior to his death was very significant and in normal course of events, any person of ordinary prudence would have disclosed this to the relatives of the deceased-Shri Suresh and the police as an immediate reaction after seeing the body of the deceased-Shri Suresh. Thus, the High Court found the conduct of Hukum Singh (PW-8) in keeping silent for more than a month to be highly suspicious and rightly so, in our opinion.
Unless the weapon was shown to be having the same blood group of deceased the recovery of weapon is inconsequential
26. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that of recovery of a chunni (stole) having blood stains of human origin at the instance of respondent-Hemlata in presence of panch witnesses Rameshwar (PW-16), Ramniwas (PW-9) and Babulal (PW-10). It is noteworthy to mention that Ramniwas (PW-9) and Rameshwar (PW-16) were not the residents of the vicinity, while Babulal (PW-10) was a police constable. Suffice it to say that otherwise also, the said recovery is insignificant and does not connect respondent-Hemlata with the murder of the deceased-Shri Suresh in any manner. This is primarily so because no opinion was obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the group of blood found on the chunni. Unless the chunni was shown to be having the same blood group as that of the deceased-Shri Suresh, the recovery thereof even with blood stains of human origin would be inconsequential and cannot link respondent-Hemlata to the crime. Moreover, the High Court, observed that the chunni was recovered on 27th January, 2006, i.e., 5 days after the incident, during which period the house was under the occupation of respondents-Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary. The High Court found it strange that the accused-respondents despite having full control over the house, did not make any effort to remove or destroy the evidence pertaining to the crime allegedly committed by them. As per the High Court, fact that the chunni was recovered from the house which remained unlocked till the police brought back respondents-Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary for inspection rendered the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act irrelevant, as it was effectively recovered from a place accessible to all and sundry.
Judgment reliance on interference with the acquittal
39. This Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka10, reiterated following principles governing interference by the appellate Court with a judgment of acquittal:-
“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 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.
42. The appellate court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court.”
Conclusion
41. As a consequence of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are dismissed as such.
42. In view of dismissal of the appeals, no orders are required to be passed in the application for impleadment and is accordingly dismissed as such.
Judgment involved or cited
* Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka – (2024) 8 SCC 149, was cited for its principles governing interference by the appellate Court with a judgment of acquittal.
Acts and Sections
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
* Section 374(2)
* Section 173(2)
* Section 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
* Section 302 (Murder) read with Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) and Section 143 (Unlawful Assembly) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information touching it to screen offender)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act)
* Section 27
* Section 65-B
Party
State of Rajasthan vs. Bhanwar Singh etc – Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1956 of 2013 – 2025 INSC 1166 – September 26, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
