Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Kishan Singh And Ors on 13 June, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 218/1998
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Kishan Singh s/o Padam Singh
2. Devi Singh s/o Kishan Singh
3. Narwar Singh s/o Kishan Singh
4. Smt. Ladkanwar w/o Devi Singh
All residents of Semalkheda Police Station Badi Sadari, District
Chittorgarh.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan
Ms. Sapna Vaishnav, Amicus Curiae
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
Reserved on 08/05/2025
Pronounced on 13/06/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. In the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State has
challenged the judgment dated 20.09.1996 passed by the learned
District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh ('Trial Court') in Sessions
Case No.105/1990 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Kishan Singh &
Ors.), whereby, accused-respondents - No.1-Kishan Singh, No.2-
Devi Singh & No.4-Ladkanwar were acquitted of the charges
against them under Sections 148, 302, 302/149 & 323 IPC;
accused respondent No.3-Narwar Singh was acquitted of the
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (2 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
charges against him under Sections 148, 302 IPC, in alternative,
Section 302/149 IPC; though accused-Narwar Singh was convicted
under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's
rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default,
to undergo further three years' rigorous imprisonment. Hence, the
appellant-State has challenged the impugned judgment dated
20.09.1996 only to the extent of acquittal part thereof.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the
year 1990 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1998.
2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by the
learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf the appellant-State,
are that on 09.08.1990, one Manohar Singh (complainant and
P.W.2) gave an oral information to the S.H.O., Police Station, Badi
Sadari, alleging therein that on the said date, at around 9:00
p.m., when, after grazing his ox, he returned to the village,
accused-Narwar, intercepted and asked as to how the complainant
was instrumental in getting the said accused's liquor seized; at
that time, accused-Devi Singh, accused-Kishan's wife, Devi
Singh's wife, whose name the complainant did not remember, also
reached there. As alleged, they all attacked the complainant, and
inflicted lathi blow on his hand, and stone blow on head. The said
act was intervened by Kesar Singh, Sangram Singh & his wife,
Kailash Singh, and other persons.
2.1. The complainant stated that there was no previous enmity
between the parties, and the said attack was due to apprehension
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (3 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
on the part of the accused persons, that the complainant was
involved in the exercise of seizure of the accused's liquor.
2.2. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case was
registered under Sections 147, 149 & 323 IPC, and the
investigation started accordingly. In the said incident, as per the
prosecution, one Kalyan Singh got injured and became
unconscious, and thus, was admitted in the Udaipur General
Hospital, where he was declared dead. Hence, after investigation,
a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 323
IPC; after hearing arguments on the stage of framing of charge,
the said charges were read over to the accused-respondents, who
denied the same and claimed trial, and the trial commenced
accordingly.
2.3. During the course of trial, the statements of 22 witnesses
(P.W. 1 to P.W. 18) were recorded, and documents (Ex.P.1 to 27)
got exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence, witnesses
D.W. 1 was produced and documents (Ex.D.1 to D.3) were
exhibited, for examination; whereafter, the accused-respondents
were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded
innocence and false implication in the criminal case in question.
2.4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, passed
the impugned judgment dated 20.09.1996, as above, and against
the acquittal part thereof, the appellant-State preferred appeal
before this Court.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
appellant-State submitted that Manohar Singh (P.W.2),
Complainant, in his testimony while narrating the incident that
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (4 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
occurred on 09.08.1990, stated that when he returned form his
well after grazing his ox, and was tethering the ox at his house,
accused-respondent Narwar Singh approached him, and hit him on
his hand by an axe, and subsequently accused-respondent Devi
Singh also hit him on his hand by a Lath. It was submitted that
the said witness had also testified that, in the meanwhile the
accused-respondent Kishan Singh also came and started hurling
stones, and thereupon two ladies also joined the attack. Further, it
was submitted that in the said testimony it had been stated that,
in meanwhile Bhomsingh, Kesar Singh, Kalyan Singh intervened to
save him, thereupon accused-respondent Narwar Singh gave a hit
to Kalyan Singh on his head by the Moond of an axe, accused-
respondent Kishan Singh gave a blow by lathi which caused injury
on ear, accused-respondent Devi Singh gave a blow of lathi on the
head of Kalyan Singh, and the ladies while hurling stones were
suggesting to end the life of Kalyan Singh. It was submitted that
P.W.2 had in clear words deposed that due to the injuries caused
to Kalyan Singh by accused-respondents he fell unconscious on
the spot, and thus was admitted in the Udaipur General Hospital,
where he was declared dead. It was further submitted that
Sangram Singh (P.W.4) corroborated with the testimony of P.W.2.
3.2. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Bhom Singh
(P.W.1), brother of complainant (P.W.2.), in his testimony has
stated that when P.W.2 was returning after grazing his ox,
accused-respondents Devi Singh, Kishan Singh, Narwar Singh
attacked P.W.2. It was further submitted that the said witness
testified that accused-respondent Narwar Singh hit Kalyan Singh
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (5 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
with the Moond of an axe, accused-respondent Devi Singh and
Kishan Singh also gave blows to Kalyan Singh by Lath. It was
submitted that as per the testimony of the said witness accused-
respondents, Narwar Singh hit Kalyan Singh on the head, Devi
Singh hit Kalyan Singh on the Ear by a lath, the wives of accused-
respondents who intervened in the meanwhile started hurling
stones, and in consequence of the attack Kalyan Singh passed
away.
3.3. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Shrimati
Ramesh Kanwar (P.W.9) had also stated in her testimony that
when she came out of her house upon hearing shouting, she saw
accused-respondent Narwar Singh gave a hit to Kalyan Singh by
the Moond of an axe, and accused-respondents Kishan Singh and
Devi Singh gave blows of lath.
3.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that Dr. Ashok
Sarupriya (P.W.14) in his statements testified that on 09.08.1990
while he was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Center,
Badi Sadri, Manohar Singh (P.W.2) was examined, and it was
found that there were injuries on P.W.2's body as shown in EX.P.
18. It was further submitted that the said witness deposed that
Bhom Singh also had injuries on his body. It was submitted that
the said witness testified that he examined the body of Kalyan
Singh, and prepared injury report Ex.P.20, wherein he found that
the first injury was 2*5 cm which had blood clot, and 5 cm cut
wound on the head, second injury was fracture on temporal bone,
and third injury was the cut injury on left ear which separated the
ear, furthermore, due to the said injury Kalyan Singh was in
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (6 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
critical condition, and hence had to be referred to Udaipur, where
he passed away. It was submitted that the post morterm report
(Ex.P. 24) clearly reflects that the cause of death was the injury to
the head.
3.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the recoveries have
been made of a Lath at the instance of accused-respondent Kishan
Singh, a stick was recovered at the instance of accused-
respondent Devi Singh, an axe was recovered at the instance of
the accused-respondent Narwar Singh.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused
respondents while opposing the submissions made on behalf of
the appellant-State, submitted that there were multiple
discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses. It was
submitted that P.W.2 in his statements deposed that Accused-
respondent Narwar Singh gave a hit to Kalyan Singh on his head
using an axe, whereas in the cross examination the said witness
stated that the same accused-respondent gave him a blow of lath
on his hand. It was submitted that even in information provided to
the police (Ex.P.1), and the FIR (Ex.P.2) registered in consequence
thereof, it was stated by the P.W.2 that accused-respondent
Narwar Singh gave him a blow of lath. Moreover, it was submitted
that in the said documents there is no mention of any axe,
whatsoever, which had been used as weapon by accused-
respondents, furthermore, it was submitted that Kesari Singh
(P.W.6) had stated in his testimony that accused-respondent
Narwar Singh attacked P.W.2 with a stick, but later stated that an
axe was used by accused-respondent Narwar Singh.
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (7 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.1 in his testimony
has mentioned that the accused-respondent Narwar Singh hit
Kalyan Singh on his head by an axe, however, in the statement
before police no description as to the nature and body part where
the injury was caused was given. Furthermore, it was submitted
that there was no mention of axe in the said statement.
4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that in the incident dated
09.08.1990, accused-respondent Devi Singh also received multiple
injuries as per Ex.P.7. It was submitted that it the complainant
and his companions who attacked the accused-respondent.
Moreover, it was submitted that the testimony of Sangram Singh
(P.W.4) reflects that Manohar Singh (P.W.2) was the person who
hit Kalyan Singh on his head by an axe. The said testimony stood
undisputed through cross-examination, and it was submitted that
it was this injury on the head which as per the doctor report
resulted into the death of Kalyan singh.
4.3. It was further submitted that Tej Singh (P.W.5) in his
testimony stated that the incident occurred in-front of the house
of accused-respondent Kishan Singh, whereas P.W.2 and P.W.1
have alleged the place of incident to be their House. On the
parallel note, it was submitted that the Naksha Mauka reveals that
the place of incident was outside the house of P.W.2.,furthermore,
P.W.1 and P.W.4 had stated in their testimony that the distance
between the two houses, i.e., houses of accused-respondent
Kishan Singh and P.W.2 is more than 150-200 fts.
4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that Nirbhay Singh (P.W.3)
stated in his testimony it was P.W.2 and accused-respondent Devi
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (8 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
Singh who were fighting, and the incident took place outside the
house of accused-respondent Devi Singh. Tej Singh (P.W.5) had
also corroborated with the testimony of P.W.3, and had stated that
the P.W.2 and accused-respondent Devi Singh were fighting
outside the House of accused-respondent Devi Singh.
4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the recoveries of the
weapons do not prove anything until they are connected to the
incident through forensics reports, and the same were not
available on record. Hence, the recoveries cannot be connected to
the incident in question.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
9. This Court observes that the present case pertains to an
incident, which occurred, allegedly on account of apprehension on
the part of the accused, that the complainant party was
instrumental in getting the liquor of the accused seized; the
learned Trial Court, passed the impugned judgment dated
20.06.1996, against which the present challenge has been laid by
the appellant-State, to the extent of acquittal part thereof.
10. This Court observes that from the record, it is clear that there
are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements
of the prosecution witnesses, particularly with respect to the
nature of the weapon used, identity of the assailant, and exact
location of the incident. The evidence of the principal witnesses--
P.W.1 (Bhom Singh), P.W.2 (Manohar Singh), P.W.4 (Sangram
Singh), and P.W.6 (Kesari Singh)--shows a lack of consistency in
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (9 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
their version as to which accused inflicted the fatal blow on the
deceased Kalyan Singh, and with what weapon.
10.1. This Court finds that P.W.2 initially stated in his deposition
that accused-respondent Narwar Singh struck Kalyan Singh with
an axe, and later the same witness stated in his cross-
examination that accused-respondent Narwar Singh hit him with a
lath. Further, in the oral information (Ex.P.1) and the FIR (Ex.P.2),
there is no mention of an axe being used in the assault. This
discrepancy regarding the primary weapon of offence used by a
principal accused goes to the root of the prosecution's case.
10.2. This Court further finds that while P.W.2 alleged that
accused-respondent Narwar Singh struck Kalyan Singh on the
head with the Moond of an axe, on the other hand, P.W.4 in his
deposition clearly stated that it was Manohar Singh (P.W.2) who
inflicted the head injury on Kalyan Singh with an axe. This
statement contradicts the prosecution's story and is not shaken in
cross-examination. Thus, there is a direct conflict between
prosecution witnesses themselves as to who delivered the fatal
blow.
10.3. This Court further finds that Bhom Singh (P.W.1) mentioned
that Narwar Singh hit Kalyan Singh on the head with an axe, while
Devi Singh and Kishan Singh gave lath blows. However, in his
statement to police, there is no detail about the body part where
the injuries were caused, and no mention of an axe at all. Such
significant omissions render his testimony unreliable.
10.4. This Court further finds that P.W.2 and P.W.1 claimed that
the incident occurred outside their house. However, P.W.5 (Tej
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (10 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
Singh) and P.W.3 (Nirbay Singh) stated that the altercation took
place outside the house of accused-respondent Devi Singh, and
that it was P.W.2 and Devi Singh who were initially fighting.
Furthermore, Naksha Mauka which indicates the location of the
incident away from where the complainant claimed. Furthermore,
P.W.1 and P.W.4 admitted that the houses are 150-200 feet apart,
making it unlikely that the incident occurred exactly as claimed by
the prosecution.
10.5. This Court also finds that Dr. Ashok Sarupriya (P.W.14), who
examined the deceased, noted multiple injuries including a cut
wound, fracture on the head and a cut on the left ear. However,
the prosecution failed to produce any forensic report linking the
recovered weapons (axe, lath, stick) to these injuries. There were
also no bloodstain evidence or serological report to corroborate
the use of those weapons by the accused-respondents. The
recovery of weapons thus remained unconnected to the offence.
10.6. This Court finds that there were injuries received by the
accused-respondent Devi Singh, which were found on record
(Ex.P.7), suggesting a possibility of a mutual assault, and thus
creating a plausible doubt over the prosecution's version.
Moreover, the testimony of P.W.4 (Sangram Singh), who stated
that it was Manohar Singh (P.W.2) who struck Kalyan Singh with
an axe, has remained consistent in cross-examination and has not
been adequately explained or contradicted by the prosecution .
11. This Court is conscious of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Krishnegowda & Ors. vs. The State of
Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98, wherein it was observed that
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (11 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
"witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice" and when the
evidence of the witnesses is filled with discrepancies,
contradictions and improbable versions, then an irresistible
conclusion is that the evidence of such witnesses cannot become a
basis to convict the accused and it is a duty of the Court to
consider the trustworthiness of the evidence on record.
12. This Court also observes that the prosecution story was not in
consonance with the testimonies of the witnesses and the
evidence produced during the trial, in order to prove a case
beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-respondents
and there is also a possible view of innocence of the accused-
respondents.
13. This Court is of the considered view that in circumstances
such as the present, judicial scrutiny must be guided by the
quality rather than the quantity of the testimonies adduced.
Where significant contradictions are apparent in the statements of
the alleged witnesses, particularly concerning material aspects
required to establish the culpability of the accused-respondents,
the benefit of such doubt must necessarily enure to the advantage
of the accused-respondents.
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 & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011, decided on
12.02.2024) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors.
Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010,
decided on 19.04.2024), as hereunder-:
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (12 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
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 Rudragoudar 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
CrPC as follows:
"8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (13 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
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 reappreciating 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;
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. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court passed
the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondents
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
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (14 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
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. This Court also observes that 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
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 precedent laws, 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./481
B.N.S.S., each of the accused-respondents are directed to furnish
a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond each
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
[2025:RJ-JD:22382-DB] (15 of 15) [CRLA-218/1998]
for grant of leave, the accused-respondents, 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.
21. This Court is thankful to Ms. Sapna Vaishnav, who has
rendered her assistance as Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the
accused-respondents, in the present adjudication.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
