Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Harish Alias Harilal ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:35108-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 207/1999
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Harish Alias Harilal son of Lakhma Meena, resident of Odwas Fala
Kherala, Police Station Risabhdeo, District Udaipur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order
07/08/2025
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State under
Section 378 of Cr.P.C. calling in question the judgment dated
31.03.1998, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3,
Udaipur, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondent-
accused of the charges under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
read with Section 9-B of the Explosive Act.
2. The facts leading to registration of the case were that an
explosion took place on 17.12.1995, in the hall of Baba Ramdev
Temple, situated in a mine, where Chena Ram-the complainant,
Sukhram and Ramanlal were sleeping, when suddenly a voice of
explosion was heard due to which he woke up to find that the
explosion took place beneath the bed of Sukharam who suffered
severe injuries on his head, back and shoulder, and succumbing to
such injuries, he died on the spot.
[2025:RJ-JD:35108-DB] (2 of 6) [CRLA-207/1999]
3. Though, the FIR was registered without naming anyone, but
after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet
against the respondent-accused alleging that he had committed
murder of the deceased on account of his previous animosity with
his father and also because the deceased had abused him a day
preceding the date of the incident. The Investigation Officer had
supported his conclusion with the aid of footprint and the report
(Ex.P-23) dated 30.01.1996 in which the right foot print matched
with the chance foot-prints taken from a place which was about 20
feet away from the place where the explosion took place. Besides
this he relied upon statements of some persons indicating prior
animosity between the accused Harish and the deceased.
4. The Investigating Officer had also relied upon a confession
which the respondent-accused had made before Hema Ram (PW-
5) and his statement given in the police custody followed by
recovery of straw (Ex-9).
5. On behalf of the prosecution, total 11 persons were
examined.
6. In his explanatory statement under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., respondent-accused denied all the allegations and
specifically stated that he did not have any land and there was no
dispute in relation to right of way. He also took a plea that PW-3
Shripal had falsely implicated him because of the animosity.
7. The trial Court after examining the evidence on record has
found that none of the circumstances has been found proved
against the respondent-accused.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor assailing the order impugned
vehemently argued that the trial Court has seriously erred in
[2025:RJ-JD:35108-DB] (3 of 6) [CRLA-207/1999]
arriving at a conclusion that none of the circumstantial evidence
has been proved against the respondent-accused. He further
submitted that the prosecution had produced evidence in the form
of PW-7 Sukhdev Prasad and other evidence to show that there
was animosity between the respondent-accused and the deceased.
He further submitted that a criminal case bearing number
196/1995 was registered at the instance of the deceased in which
the father of the respondent-accused had remained behind the
bars and being annoyed of such action, the respondent-accused
had decided to commit murder of the deceased by explosion. He
submitted that the respondent-accused used to work in the mines
of the deceased and as evidence has come on record, he had a
grudge against the deceased, for which he had committed his
murder.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the
circumstance of foot-prints being a scientific evidence had been
amply proved by the prosecution by way of producing expert
opinion Ex. P-23 in which it had clearly been reported that the
foot-prints of the accused tallied with the chance foot-prints found
on the site. He submitted that in the face of the report of the foot-
prints expert, the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the
respondent-accused.
10. In relation to the issue of confession, learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that PW-8 Hema Ram had initially informed
the Police and thereafter appeared in the witness box and
reiterated his stand that the accused had accepted and confessed
his guilt of murdering the deceased and, therefore, all the
requisite ingredients had been duly proved.
[2025:RJ-JD:35108-DB] (4 of 6) [CRLA-207/1999]
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused
supported the order passed by the trial Court and submitted that
the trial Court has examined the oral and documentary evidence
in its correct perspective and there is no scope for interference.
She argued that even if the trial Court has not considered one or
two evidence as contended by the State, the order of acquittal
should not be interfered as there are no glaring lapses in the trial.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
13. On going through the order of the trial Court and the
evidence relied upon by it, we are in the total agreement with the
view taken by the trial court.
14. So far as, the issue of animosity is concerned, the oral
evidence points more towards Jalam Singh and other 10-11
persons, whose names had surfaced during the investigation and
in the testimony before the Court. True it is, that there is some
traces of evidence of respondent-accused having some altercation
with the deceased but such statement is liable to be discarded
inasmuch as it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the
respondent-accused worked with the deceased until 16.12.1995,
just a day before his death and also that the deceased had paid
his due wages.
15. In relation to the foot-print report (Ex. P-23), this Court
would like to observe that the chance foot-prints was taken from a
point about 20 feet away from the place of occurrence.
Admittedly, the respondent-accused had been working with the
deceased at the mine and such existence of his foot-prints in mine
[2025:RJ-JD:35108-DB] (5 of 6) [CRLA-207/1999]
and around the place of occurrence is nothing unnatural or
abnormal.
16. Hence, even if the foot-print of the respondent-accused
matched with the chance foot-prints, he cannot be convicted
solely for such reason.
17. So far as confession is concerned, it is to be noted that the
deceased died on 17.12.1995 and said Hema Ram had come to
the Police Station on 27-12-1995 (after about 10 days) and
informed about the confession of the respondent-accused. It is
quite unnatural that the respondent-accused would bring his heart
out before a person not so closed to him. It is intriguing to find
that said Hema Ram in his Court's statement had stated that while
he was going, the accused intercepted him and made a disclosure
of his having murdered the deceased.
18. Confession is normally made to a person very closely
associated and that too during the course of intimate discussion or
interaction. No person would stop a rather lesser known person on
the way and announce that he has committed a murder.
19. Furthermore, the disclosure statement of the accused and
information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is also a
farce. It is ridiculous to believe that a person having opened the
fuse of detonator with a straw (which is available everywhere in
open area) would take the straw with him after the explosion and
hide it beneath a big stone. A straw (tinaka) of a dried twig of a
tree or plant with which one had done a whole to fit the 'bati'
(thread) to ignite an explosive device was easily available in the
open land of the area having plantation in abundance. Hence,
firstly the straw cannot be considered as a weapon of offence and
[2025:RJ-JD:35108-DB] (6 of 6) [CRLA-207/1999]
secondly the recovery memo (Ex. P-9) does not inspire
confidence.
20. The Investigating Officer had relied upon statement of
Shripal, but when Shripal appeared in the Court as witness (PW-3)
his deposition clearly showed that they were actuated with
malafides and he had prior animosity with the deceased. Such
being the position and in the face of the stand the respondent-
accused while giving his response to the circumstances and
evidence against him as per Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., his
testimony is liable to be discarded and has rightly been discarded
by the trial Court.
21. As a conclusion of the discussion foregoing, we do not find
any substance and merit in the appeal. The same is hereby,
dismissed.
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
52-amit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
