Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Shanker Ram And Anr ... on 12 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:8694-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 522/2003
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shanker Ram son of Kishna Ram, resident of Bhamatsar,
at present Sarvoday Basti, Bikaner.
2. Saitana Ram son of Shri Mana Ram, resident of Sarvoday
Basti, Bikaner
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
12/02/2025
To challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 15th June 2002
passed in Sessions Case No.81 of 2001, the State of Rajasthan
has questioned the reasonings given by the Additional Sessions
Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner by filing the present Acquittal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution as narrated by Bhanwarlal who is
the father of the victim Manoj is that Shanker Ram and Shaitana
Ram had a quarrel with his son in the afternoon of 8 th September
1998 between 01:00-2:00 PM and they both started beating his
son. The informant has made a categoric allegation that Shaitana
Ram grabbled his son while Shanker Ram struck him on his head
with an iron rod (sariya) and when his son started raising hallah
saying maare maare his neighbours Ram Pratap and Dhatu Ram
came there. According to the informant, Ram Pratap and Dhatu
[2025:RJ-JD:8694-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLA-522/2003]
Ram could see the accused persons assaulting his son and when
they arrived at the scene of crime the accused persons fled away.
This is the case of the prosecution that Manoj was taken to P.B.M.
Hospital for treatment by his father Bhanwarlal, uncle Ram Pratap
and Dhatu Ram but he succumbed to injuries around 4:30-5:00
AM the next morning. Thereafter, a report was lodged with the
Police Station at Nayasahar around 6:00 A.M. on 9 th September
1998.
3. During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses
out of whom P.W.9 Manphool Singh is the Investigating Officer
who prepared Panchnama, sent the dead body of Manoj for post-
mortem examination and prepared Fard Jabti of blood smeared
shirt of Manoj and recovered iron rod at the instance of Shanker
Ram. P.W. 9 also prepared the arrest memo and carried the
investigation.
4. As P.W.8, Dr. O.P. Saini conducted the post-mortem
examination over the dead body of Manoj and found the following
injuries on his person :-
Ante Mortem injuries at time of Post Mortem examination :-
1. Stitch wound 1 cm on Lt. side occibital region upper part
with clotted blood.
2. Abrasion 3 x 1/2 cm on Lt. side occibital region lower
part.
3. Abrasion 5 x 1/2 cm & 4 ½ Lt. forearm on upper half and
lower half.
4. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on Rt. Knee cap & 1/2 & 1/2 cm.
5. Lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm on Rt. Index & Middle
finger each on distal phalynx dorsally with clotted blood.
6. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on Rt. Iliac crest region.
7. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on Rt. Scapular region.
Above mention injuries are ante mortem and within about
24 hrs. duration prior to death.
Opinion:-
The cause of death is coma due to head injury due to injury
no.1 as mentioned in this P.M. report as ante mortem and
sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of Nature.
[2025:RJ-JD:8694-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLA-522/2003]
. There is a hole of size 0.9 cm x 0.9 cm on skull below injury
no.1 with clotted blood.
. Injury No.1 may occur from 'Pointed Blunt Weapon'.
5. According to P.W.8, the injuries on the person of Manoj were
ante-mortem in nature and were caused about 24 hours before his
death.
6. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner
disbelieved the testimony of P.W.1 Bhanwarlal, P.W.2 Ram Pratap,
P.W.3 Gomti and P.W.4 Dana Ram and held that the prosecution
failed to establish that injuries to Manoj were caused by the
accused persons.
7. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that
this is no ground to disbelieve the evidence tendered by the
prosecution witnesses that they were close relatives of the victim
and therefore interested in prosecution of the accused persons.
Referring to the injury report of P.W.3 vide Ex.P10, Mr. Rajesh
Bhati, would urge that it is unbelievable and would be contrary to
natural conduct of a person that P.W.3 has caused self-inflicted
injuries just for the purpose of ensuring prosecution of the
accused persons.
8. This is quite a settled proposition that relationship is not a
ground to discard the testimony of a witness. A close relative
would not falsely implicate an innocent person in the crime, but
then, there is no law of universal application that a close relative
of the victim shall always remain truthful while tendering evidence
in the Court. There may be variety of reasons for a witness to
depose falsely in the Court such as suspicion, past animosity etc.
and, therefore, it shall be the duty of the Court to closely and
carefully examine the testimony of a related witness.
[2025:RJ-JD:8694-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLA-522/2003]
9. Not only P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Manoj, the
presence of P.W.2 who is the uncle and P.W.3 who is mother of the
deceased Manoj was seriously challenged by the defence at the
place of the occurrence and at the time of the occurrence. The
specific stand taken by the defence is that P.W.2 is not a resident
of Bikaner and he admitted in his cross-examination that he is not
registered as a voter at Bikaner and he is not even registered as a
voter in his village. He further admitted that he does not possess
a ration card showing his place of residence at Bikaner. We have
this in our mind that a witness like P.W.2 who has been
categorized by the defence as a chance witness must establish his
presence on the day, time and place of occurrence. However,
going by the admissions of P.W.2 in the cross-examination while
he was tendering evidence in the Court, we accord approval to the
opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge that P.W.2 was not an eye
witness.
10. As to injuries to P.W.3, the prosecution could not establish
beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt that she had suffered
such injuries in the occurrence and at the hands of the accused
persons. Furthermore, we gather from the materials on record
that the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses is to the
effect that Shanker Ram gave a single iron rod blow on the head
of Manoj and nothing beyond has been said by the prosecution
witnesses in the Court. However, as we glance through the injuries
observed by P.W.8 on the person of Manoj which were about seven
in number, it appears that there was a quarrel between the
deceased and the assailants and Manoj suffered several abrasions
and lacerated wound in course of the scuffle over forearm, upper
[2025:RJ-JD:8694-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLA-522/2003]
and lower half, knee cap, middle finger and scapular region. Such
injuries cast a serious doubt on the prosecution story inasmuch as
none of the prosecution witnesses stated in the Court that Manoj
was thrashed on the ground or he suffered several minor injuries
in the scuffle. In fact, the prosecution witnesses have stated in
the Court that Shaitana Ram grabbed Manoj while Shanker Ram
struck one iron rod blow on the head of Manoj. The Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track) has also taken note of the fact that
the name of the persons who brought Manoj to the hospital were
missing (unknown). Moreover, the prosecution also failed to
indicate why a report to the police Station which was about only 2
Km from the place of occurrence was not lodged promptly by any
other person if not father of Manoj.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, D.B. Criminal Appeal
No.522 of 2003 is dismissed.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
162-Bharti/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
