Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 December, 2025
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur, Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JD:52415-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 2077/2025
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.60/2020
Prakash S/o Bhairulal Teli, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Khankhla,
P.S. Gangapur, District Bhilwara.
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Bhilwara).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Panwar, Amicus Curiae.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
assisted by Mr. Kuldeep Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 04/12/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the present matter has been listed on the application seeking suspension of sentence, but the jail appeal itself may be heard and disposed of at this stage.
3. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-applicant, the jail appeal itself is heard and decided finally at this stage.
4. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Prakash, S/o Shri Bhairulal Teli, from jail against the judgment dated 17.05.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:01 PM) (Downloaded on 09/12/2025 at 08:42:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52415-DB] (2 of 7) [SOSA-2077/2025] Judge No. 01, Bhilwara Camp, Gangapur, in Sessions Case No. 95/2017 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No.218/2017, whereby the accused-appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 302, of the IPC.
5. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life till the remainder of his natural life along with a fine of Rs.2000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.
6. Brief facts for deciding the present appeal are that on 27.08.2017, the complainant Ganpat submitted a written complaint at Police Station Gangapur stating that he and his four brothers - Ramesh, Ramchandra, Prithviraj and Prakash - reside at different places, while he and his brother Prakash lived with their mother, Smt. Sohni Devi, in the village. It was alleged that Prakash often quarreled with their mother as she requested him to return home on time for meals. Due to this, Prakash frequently threatened and assaulted her. He would also accuse his mother of being biased towards him. On the date of incident, Ganpat had gone to bring milk at his mother's request, leaving Prakash and his mother at home. Upon returning, he found the door closed but unbolted. Entering the house, he saw Prakash strangulating their mother. On raising an alarm, Prakash attempted to flee by climbing onto the roof, but Ganpat and nearby villagers apprehended him and informed the police. Smt. Sohni Devi was (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:01 PM) (Downloaded on 09/12/2025 at 08:42:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52415-DB] (3 of 7) [SOSA-2077/2025] found dead due to strangulation. On these allegations, a repot was lodged stating that Prakash had murdered their mother.
7. On the basis of the above written complaint, a formal FIR No.218/2017 (Exhibit P.09) was registered at Police Station, Gangapur, Bhilwara Camp against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, IPC.
8. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under section 302, IPC.
9. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Sections 302 IPC to the accused-appellant, who denied the charge and sought trial.
10. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-10.
11. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances put to him, stating that the prosecution witnesses had deposed falsely, that the evidence was fabricated, and that he was innocent. The accused-appellant did not lead any defence evidence, and the defence evidence was accordingly closed.
12. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:01 PM) (Downloaded on 09/12/2025 at 08:42:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52415-DB] (4 of 7) [SOSA-2077/2025] sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid vide judgment dated 17.05.2019.
13. Hence the present appeal.
14. The learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant- accused, vehemently submits that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, despite relying on oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence.
15. He further submits that although the prosecution alleges frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased Sohni Devi, such general allegations of strained domestic relations cannot, by themselves, constitute proof of guilt. The statements regarding the accused allegedly threatening the deceased or accusing her of bias are vague, omnibus, and unsupported by any independent or reliable evidence.
16. He further submits that the prosecution case rests entirely on the testimony of the complainant (Ganpat), who claims to have returned home with a milk packet and allegedly witnessed the accused strangulating his mother. However, serious doubts arise regarding the sequence of events, the possibility of witnessing the act as described, and the absence of any independent eye- witnesses despite the incident allegedly occurring in a residential area. The conduct of the complainant, as narrated, is also inconsistent with normal human behaviour, and no scientific or forensic evidence has been produced to substantiate the allegation of strangulation directly linking the accused to the act.
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:01 PM) (Downloaded on 09/12/2025 at 08:42:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52415-DB] (5 of 7) [SOSA-2077/2025]
17. The alleged attempt by the accused to flee by climbing onto the roof is not corroborated by clear or consistent testimonies. The prosecution's reliance on the presence of only the accused and the deceased in the house at the time of occurrence forms a weak circumstantial link, which cannot sustain a conviction unless the chain of circumstances is complete, coherent, and points unerringly to the guilt of the accused. In the present case, several material gaps, contradictions, and omissions break the chain of circumstances.
18. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that mere proof of motive or strained relations does not discharge the prosecution's burden. The prosecution has also not proved the documentary evidence conclusively so as to exclude every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
19. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and has supported the prosecution case set out before the trial court and he submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 17.05.2019.
20. We have considered the submissions made before this Court and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case, including the impugned order dated 17.05.2019.
21. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the ocular evidence of PW-1 Ganpat, who has clearly stated that when he entered into the house, he saw Prakash strangulating his mother and when he (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:01 PM) (Downloaded on 09/12/2025 at 08:42:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52415-DB] (6 of 7) [SOSA-2077/2025] was trying to flee from the place of incident, he was caught by him along with the neighbours gathered on the terrace of his house. We further find that the statement of PW-3 Sohanlal also corroborates the statement of PW-1 Ganpat and the statement of PW-1 Ganpat and PW-3 Sohanlal gets fortified from the postmortem report (Ex.7) and the statement of PW-8 Dr. Mukesh Tiwari.
22. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that the complainant Ganpat--son of the deceased Sohni Devi--clearly stated that the accused Prakash, also her son, used to return home late at night, leading to frequent quarrels whenever the deceased advised him to come home on time for meals due to her old age. The deceased was regularly subjected to threats, abuse, and allegations of bias by the accused. On the date of the incident, the deceased, complainant Ganpat, and the accused were present at home. The complainant Ganpat had gone to purchase milk. Upon his return, he found the door closed but not latched from inside. Entering the house, he witnessed the accused Prakash strangulating the deceased, who had already become silent and motionless. On raising an alarm, the accused attempted to flee but was chased and apprehended by the informant with the assistance of villagers who gathered upon hearing his cries.
23. After considering the rival submissions and thoroughly evaluating the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Prakash caused the death of (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:01 PM) (Downloaded on 09/12/2025 at 08:42:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52415-DB] (7 of 7) [SOSA-2077/2025] his mother, Smt. Sohni Devi, by strangulation. The act committed by the accused is not only grave in nature but also reflects a complete betrayal of the most sacred and natural relationship between a mother and her son.
24. The neck is a vital and sensitive part of the human body, where even minimal pressure can endanger life. In the present case, the accused applied forceful pressure to the frontal portion of the throat of the deceased. Such an act cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be regarded as accidental or lacking in intention. The manner of assault clearly establishes the intention to cause death, or at the very least, the knowledge that such an act was imminently likely to result in death.
25. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has rightly evaluated the evidence on record and after discussing the entire facts, has correctly convicted the accused- appellant vide impugned judgment dated 17.05.2019.
26. Therefore, there is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
27. Consequently, the application seeking suspension of sentence stands disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
55-Kartik/CP Goyal/-
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/12/2025 at 08:42:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)