Lokesh And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:36020-Db)
2025 Latest Caselaw 6149 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lokesh And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:36020-Db) on 12 August, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:36020-DB]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
                     D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 666/1999

1. Lokesh S/o Banshi Lal, B/c Jat, R/o J-22, Udai Park, Hiran
Magri, Udaipur.
2. Narayan @ Narayan Singh @ Narbu S/o Bhagwan Singh, B/c
Rawat, R/o Lunda House, Surajpole, Udaipur.
                     (Both at present lodged in Central Jail at Udaipur)
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Chakravarti Singh
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

                                    Judgment

12/08/2025

BY THE COURT : (Per Hon'ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.)

The present criminal appeal 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed

by the accused-appellants against the judgment dated

30.09.1999, passed by learned District and Sessions Judge,

Rajsamand, in Session Case No.62/1997 by which the learned

Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as

under:

Appellant No.1 : Lokesh

S.No. Offence U/s Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine

1. 302/34 IPC Life Rs.15,000/- 3 years RI imprisonment

[2025:RJ-JD:36020-DB] (2 of 6) [CRLA-666/1999]

2. 460 IPC 10 years RI Rs.10,000/- 2 years RI

Appellant No.2 : Narayan @ Narayan Singh @ Narbu

S.No. Offence U/s Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine

1. 302 IPC Life Rs.15,000/- 3 years RI imprisonment

2. 460 IPC 10 years RI Rs.10,000/- 2 years RI

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy

are that 08.10.1996, complainant Sushila Tak gave an oral

information to the Police that on 08.10.1996, at about 9:30 PM,

when she and her husband Bherulal were sleeping in the house, at

that time accused-appellant forcefully entered in the house and

accused-appellant No.2 Narayan, who was having knife in his

hand, gave knife blow on the neck of complainant's husband

Bherulal. While, appellant No.1 Lokesh caught hold the mouth of

the complainant Sushila. On raising hue and cry, both accused

appellants fled on a motorcycle. Due to heavy loss of blood, the

husband of the complainant died while taking to hospital.

On the said report, Police registered the FIR No.338/1996

and started investigation. On completion of investigation, police

filed challan against the five accused persons including the present

appellants.

Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed the charges for the

offence under Sections 460, 302 IPC to accused Narayan and

under Sections 460, 302/34 IPC to accused Lokesh. They denied

the charge and sought trial.

[2025:RJ-JD:36020-DB] (3 of 6) [CRLA-666/1999]

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as nineteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents

in support of its case.

The statements of the accused persons were recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence, no witness was produced.

Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both

the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the

documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide

judgment dated 30.09.1999 acquitted three accused persons

namely Banshilal, Bharat & Mukesh, but convicted and sentenced

the present accused-appellants for the offences as mentioned

above. Hence, this criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellants

against their conviction.

Vide order dated 28.08.2002, the present criminal appeal

qua accused appellant No.2 Narayan @ Narayan Singh @ Narbu

had been dismissed by this Court as abated upon his death.

So far as appellant No.1 Lokesh is concerned, counsel

submits that on perusal of the FIR, would reveal that no specific

role whatsoever has been assigned to him by the complainant and

specific role of causing knife injury to the deceased was made

against appellant No.2 Narayan. Accused-appellant No.1 Lokesh

had only caught-hold the mouth of the complainant Sushila, who

is wife of the deceased Bherulal. It is further submitted that the

eye-witness PW-07 Sushila and other witness PW-14 Virendra

Kumar were declared hostile. Counsel submits that the other

witnesses only stated in their statements that they were informed

by the complainant about the accused-appellants for inflicting

knife injury to her husband. It is further submitted that in this

[2025:RJ-JD:36020-DB] (4 of 6) [CRLA-666/1999]

case, no identification parade was held by the prosecution. Thus,

the main accused in this case was Narayan @ Narayan Singh @

Narbu and not the appellant No.1 Lokesh. Moreover, similarly

situated three co-accused persons have already been acquitted by

the trial court. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction

being per se illegal and perverse, deserves to be quashed and set

aside and the appellant No.1 Lokesh may be acquitted from the

offences under Section 302/34 & 460 IPC.

Per-contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

submitted that though the main accused Narayan @ Narayan

Singh @ Narbu had already been passed away, but the appellant

No.1 Lokesh accompanied the main accused in commission of

offence. At the time of incident, the appellant No.1 Lokesh had

caught-hold the mouth of the complainant Sushila. It is submitted

that the learned trial court after meticulous examination of the

evidence, oral as well as documentary, has rightly convicted and

sentenced the accused-appellant No.1 Lokesh for the offence

under Sections 302/34, 460 IPC IPC. He thus craves dismissal of

the appeal.

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.

In this case, the main allegation for inflicting knife injury to

deceased Bherulal has been attributed to appellant No.2 Narayan.

The deceased Bherulal received only a single injury on his neck.

No other injury was found on the body of the deceased. Initially,

the allegation against the appellant No.1 Lokesh was that he

accompanied the main accused Narayan and at the time of

[2025:RJ-JD:36020-DB] (5 of 6) [CRLA-666/1999]

incident, he caught hold the mouth of the complainant Sushila.

Subsequently, eye-witness Sushila (PW-7), complainant-wife of

the deceased Bherulal, during her examination did not make any

allegations or assertions against the accused appellant No. 1-

Lokesh and she turned hostile. Other hearsay witness Virendra

Singh (PW-14), neighbour of the complainant and Manohar Lal

(PW-15), brother of the deceased, have also been declared hostile

by the trial court. The remaining witnesses of the case have

specifically deposed that they were informed by the complainant-

Sushila and Manohar Lal (PW-15) about the accused-appellants.

Further, no identification parade was held by the prosecution in

this case and no recovery was made from the possession of

accused appellant No. 1- Lokesh.

In the absence of concrete and convincing evidence, the

presumption of innocence must prevail. Consequently, we find that

the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused

appellant No.1 Lokesh beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly,

the accused appellant No.1 Lokesh is entitled to be acquitted of

the charges under Sections 302/34, 460 IPC.

Resultantly, the present criminal appeal is allowed.

Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant No.1 Lokesh as

recorded vide judgment dated 30.09.1999 passed by learned

District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, in Sessions Case

No.62/1997 is quashed and set aside. The appellant No.1 Lokesh

is acquitted of offence under Sections 302/34, 460 IPC. The

appellant No.1 is on bail; he need not surrender. His bail bonds

stand discharged accordingly. Record of the learned court below

be sent back forthwith.

[2025:RJ-JD:36020-DB] (6 of 6) [CRLA-666/1999]

Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A

Cr.P.C. the accused appellant No.1 Lokesh is directed to forthwith

furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety

bond in the like amount before the learned trial court within a

period of one month, which shall be effective for a period of six

months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave

Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant,

on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

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


                                    16-MS/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)