State vs Shanker Singh And Ors ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4256 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Shanker Singh And Ors ... on 5 August, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 389/2003

State of Rajasthan
                                                                            ----Appellant
                                        Versus
1. Shanker Singh S/o Laxman Singh Rawat, R/o Bhuriya Kheda
Kalla Bhadeta, PS Jawaja, District Ajmer.
2. Chhagan Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh Rawat, R/o Village & Post
Durgabaas, PS Beawar City, at present Fatehpuriya, Sendra
Road, Beawar, District Ajmer.
3. Pravin Singh S/o Lal Singh Rawat, R/o Bhuriya Kheda Kalla,
PS Jawaja, District Ajmer.
4. Jai Singh S/o Rajendra Singh Rawat, R/o Biliyawas Borela, PS
Bhim, District Rajsamand.
                                                                         ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)                :    Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent(s)               :    Mr. Rakesh Matoriya



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Judgment

Per Hon'ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

05/08/2025

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against

the judgment dated 14.08.2002, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Sessions Case

No.100/2001, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the

accused-respondents from the offences punishable under Sections

120-B, 302, 302/34 IPC.

Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy

are that on 15.05.2021, complainant Mahendra Singh (PW-1)

submitted a written report at Police Station Bhim to the effect that

[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]

he along with Jai Singh, Pintu & Shanker Singh visited the

residence of Moti Singh for dinner. Between 9 PM and 10 PM, a

young boy arrived there and asked about Pintu. At that time, Pintu

also arrived there and they subsequently left together. The

complainant, Jai Singh and Shanker Singh can identify that boy.

On the said night, Pintu did not return. The following morning,

complainant's uncle Udai Singh informed them that the dead-body

of Pintu was discovered lying in the field. It was alleged that his

brother Pintu was murdered by that boy, allegedly with the

assistance of others, by using a sharp edged weapon.

On the aforesaid complaint, Police registered a case against

the accused-respondents and started investigation. On completion

of investigation, Police filed challan against the accused

respondents for offence under Sections 302, 120B/34 IPC.

Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and

explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302, 302/34,

120B IPC to the accused respondents. They denied the charge and

sought trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as twenty-nine witnesses and also got exhibited relevant

documents in support of its case.

The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. and they were confronted with the evidence adduced

against them during the course of trial to which they denied and

stated that they did not commit any offence. They were innocent

and had been falsely implicated in the present case.

Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both

the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the

[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]

documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide

judgment dated 14.08.2002 acquitted the accused-respondents

from offence under Sections 302, 302/34, 120B IPC. Hence this

appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-

respondents.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that the

learned trial court has failed to appreciate the statements of the

witnesses in right perspective manner and hence committed grave

and serious error of law in acquitting the accused-respondents

from the offence under Sections 302, 302/34, 120B IPC. It is

further contended that this case is primarily based on

circumstantial evidence, which includes the evidence of last seen

theory, the recovery of weapon and clothes as well as the

establishment of motive by the prosecution, but the learned trial

court discarded the evidence of last seen as well as other

circumstantial evidence and recovery of weapon. It is submitted

that learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has

neither appreciated the evidence of the prosecution, nor has

applied its judicious mind, which resulted into loss of substantial

justice. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal being per se

illegal and erroneous, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondents submits that

this case based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution

has failed to connect the accused-respondents with the alleged

crime by way of any circumstances. The learned trial court has

considered each and every aspect of the matter while passing the

order of acquittal. The learned trial court has passed a detailed

and reasoned order of acquittal after proper appreciation of

[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]

evidence available before it, which requires no interfere from this

Court.

We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the

parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well

as record of the case.

Having examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,

we note that PW-1 Mahendra Singh is the complainant in this

case. He deposed that in the mid-night before the incident, he

went for dinner at the house of his uncle Moti Singh. After having

dinner, he was returning to home. On the way, he met with a

person, who was asking about Pintu. The said person was

Chhagan Singh, accused-respondent No.2. On the next morning,

Narpat Singh informed the said witness that dead-body of his

brother Pintu @ Jitendra way lying in the pearl millet field.

PW-2 Lila Devi, the mother of the deceased, was examined

and deposed that she did not partake in dinner at the residence of

Moti Singh. She further states that a young boy approached her

and informed that Pintu had left with his friend Praveen, but he

did not return. The following morning, Uday Singh informed her

that the dead-body of Pintu had been discovered lying in the field.

She expressed suspicion towards Praveen, the friend with whom

Pintu had gone before his demise. In her cross-examination, the

said witness deposed that in her Police statement, she stated that

she had a suspicion that the persons namely Hajari Singh, Mangal

Singh & Heera Singh, with whom she had a property dispute,

might have been involved in causing death.

PW-3 Laxman Singh, father of the deceased, deposed that he

had a suspicion that the accused-respondent Shanker Singh might

[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]

have killed deceased Pintu for the reason that the girl, with whom

the marriage of Pintu was fixed, accused Shanker Singh wanted to

marry that girl. Accused Shanker Singh was annoyed because the

marriage of that girl was going to be solemnized with deceased

Pintu. He further expressed suspicion against the person with

whom property dispute has been going. In his cross-examination,

he deposed that his daughter-in-law found a love letter from the

pocket of deceased Pintu while washing the clothes. The said letter

was handed over to the Police, which was marked as Ex-3. The

date on the said letter was mentioned as 02.04.2001, which is

about one and half months earlier than the date of incident.

PW-7 Guman Singh deposed that whenever he tried to

arrange the engagement of his daughter Pushpa, accused Shanker

Singh and his family members threatened him that upon releasing

from jail, Shanker Singh would murder the person, which whom

Pushpa got engaged.

Whereas, PW-9 Pushpa in her cross-examiantion deposed

that Shanker Singh never said in the four years since his inquest

that he would kill Pintu.

PW-5, 8, 10 to 13, 21, 22, 24 & 28 were declared hostile.

On meticulous examination of the evidence of the aforesaid

witnesses, it appears that there is no connecting evidence

available on record against the accused-respondents. The

prosecution has also failed to prove the motive as well as evidence

of last seen. Further, the recovery of clothes was made at the

instance of the accused-respondents. In the FSL (Ex-33), no

grouping was come out only human origin blood was found. The

aforesaid witnesses deposed that they had a suspicion on the

[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]

accused-respondents being involved in the murder of deceased

Pintu.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya

Pradesh vs. Phoolchand Rathore reported in 2023 CriLR 724,

while observing that courts are generally reluctant to interfere

with an order of acquittal, recognized that such interference is

warranted when it becomes evident that the acquittal was based

on an entirely flawed reasoning process, legally erroneous, and

involved a perverse approach to the facts of the case. In such

circumstances, where the order of acquittal has led to a grave and

substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court may reverse the

acquittal and convert it into a conviction. In support of this

principle, the Court relied upon its prior judgments, emphasizing

the exceptional nature of such interference to rectify substantial

errors in the acquittal order. these are:-

21. In State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169, reiterating the same view it was observed:

"8. ... This being an appeal against acquittal, this Court would be slow in interfering with the findings of the High Court, unless there is perverse appreciation of the evidence which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and if the High Court has taken a plausible view this Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal passed in favour of the accused and if two views are possible and the High Court had chosen one view which is just and reasonable, then also this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the judgment of the High Court."

22. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020) 11 SCC 174, it was observed:

"190. ... Reversal of a judgment and order of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not

[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]

ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have upon analysis of the evidence on record found the accused to be "not guilty". ..."

Similarly in the case of State of State of Uttrakhand Vs. Sanjay

Ram Tamta, reported in (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 159,' the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed as under:--

"6. Trite is the principle that the appellate courts would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially since the presumption of innocence that is always available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the acquittal and unless there are very substantive and compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt; appellate courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal.

7. Recently, in Surender Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid down the principle in the following manner in SCC para 24:

24 It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 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."

[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLA-389/2003]

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the

opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its

case against the accused-respondents for offence under Sections

302, 302/34, 120-B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The

petitioner/State has failed to show any error of law or on facts on

the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the

judgment under challenge. The judgment passed by the learned

trial court is detailed, reasoned and perfectly justified. Therefore,

the same does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality

warranting any interference from this Court.

With these observations, the present criminal appeal has no

substance and the same is hereby dismissed.

Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

                                   (RAVI CHIRANIA),J                                   (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J


                                    12-MS/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)