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)