Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Mukh Ram on 22 May, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 584/1997
State of Rajasthan
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
Mukh Ram S/o Sh. Purkha Ram, resident of Nathwana Police
Station Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
                                   Ms. Anjali Kaushik
For Respondent(s)            :     Ms. Anita Gehlot (Amicus Curiae)


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH Order

Reserved on: 23/04/2025 Pronounced on: 22/05/2025 Per Hon'ble Mr. Sandeep Shah, J:

1. The present appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed

by the State of Rajasthan being aggrieved against the judgment

dated 24.05.1997 passed by Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma, learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.13/96

(16/96), whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent-

Mukh Ram for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Facts of the case:

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the prosecution, are

that on 30.11.1995, at around 06:00 AM, an unknown call was

received at Police Station Loonkaransar informing that a murder had

been committed at village Nathwana. Based on the information, the

SHO, Madan Singh, along with his staff, reached village Nathwana at

around 07:00 AM. Parmaram (maternal uncle of deceased) gave a

statement (parcha bayan), wherein he stated that on 27.11.1995, in

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (2 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

the evening, he had visited his sister, Goga, wife of Loonaram. It

was mentioned that neither Smt. Goga nor her son, Hanumanram,

were present. However, the wife and children of Hanumanram were

present and informed him that Hanumanram, after having a

discussion with the villagers, would go to his agricultural field.

Parmaram further stated that at around 09:00 AM, Ramlal and

Kakku Singh came on a camel cart, with Hanumanram lying in an

injured state in the cart. Ramlal and Kakku Singh informed him that

while they were traveling on the right-of-way near the agricultural

field of Purkharam Meghwal, they saw Purkharam's son assaulting

Hanumanram with a lathi, while another son of Purkharam was

sitting on the wall. They claimed to have intervened and separated

the two. However, Parmaram noted that Ramlal and Kakku Singh did

not mention the name of the person who had assaulted

Hanumanram. Parmaram further stated that Ramlal and Kakku

Singh lifted Hanumanram from the cart and placed him on a bed,

where they observed injuries on his left leg, right side hand, and

other parts of his body. Hanumanram was unconscious, and

therefore, they could not inquire about the incident from him.

Parmaram then stated that he went to the village and informed

Moolaram, and subsequently arranged a vehicle to take Loonaram to

Loonkaransar. However, by that time, Hanumanram had passed

away. Parmaram then went on a motorcycle to Dulmera, informed

Aaduram about the incident, and brought him to the village.

Aaduram subsequently reported the incident to the police.

3. Based on Parmaram's statement, FIR No. 257 dated

30.11.1995 was lodged at Police Station Loonkaransar, and an

investigation was initiated. The challan was filed against the

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (3 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

accused-respondent, Mukhram, for offences punishable under

Section 302 of the IPC.

4. After the framing of charges, the trial commenced, and the

prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited various

documents to prove the guilt of the accused. During his examination

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-respondent stated that he

was falsely implicated. He further claimed that he was residing son-

in-law at his in-laws' house in Piperan. He stated that at the time of

the incident, he was living in his in-laws' house in Piperan. He stated

that he and his wife were not on taking terms with his father

Hukmaram and his wife. He later learned that Hanumanram had

attempted to rape his bhabhi- Kalawati (the wife of his brother,

Hukmaram), who had subsequently assaulted deceased and falsely

implicated him due to property dispute.

5. The learned trial court, after considering the record of the

case, delivered its judgment on 24.05.1997, holding that the

prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the

reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused was acquitted of the

charge punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Being aggrieved

against the same the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-

State.

Argument on behalf of the appellant- State and counsel for

complainant:

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the

judgment passed by the trial court is bereft of consideration of the

material available on record, and the statements of the eye-

witnesses have been disbelieved without assigning any reasons

whatsoever. Learned counsel further stated that the present case

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (4 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

involves an incident that was proven through the statements of the

eye-witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Kakku Singh @ Harnail Singh, PW-2

Ramlal and PW-3 Sohanlal. However, the trial court has disbelieved

their statements despite the fact that there were only minor

contradictions in their testimonies, which did not impeach their

testimony in total.

7. It was further argued that even the recovery of the weapon

used in the incident, i.e., the bloodstained lathi, was made at the

instance of the information provided by the accused under Section

27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, there was sufficient

evidence linking the accused to the incident. However, the trial court

failed to consider this important piece of evidence while acquitting

the accused.

8. Additionally, it was argued that the incident in question was

also proven by the medical evidence of PW-6 Dr. Jagdish Sankhla,

which further corroborated that the deceased had been severely

assaulted by the accused and had 35 injuries on his body at the

time of the post-mortem. However, the testimony of the doctor was

wrongly interpreted by the learned trial court while arriving at a

conclusion regarding the issue of time of death of the deceased.

9. It was thus prayed that the impugned order be quashed and

set aside, and that the accused-respondent be convicted and

sentenced as per the provisions of law for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of the IPC.

Argument on behalf of counsel for respondent-accused:

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that although the prosecution has attempted to prove the

presence of three witnesses as eye-witnesses, a perusal of the

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (5 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

entire record and the statements of the witnesses will clearly show

that there are significant contradictions in their testimonies.

Particularly regarding the presence of one of the eye-witnesses, i.e.,

Sohanlal, at the scene of the incident there was no corroboration. As

for the other two eye-witnesses, it was stated that their testimonies

reveal that both of them are planted witnesses, and their presence

at the scene has not been proven at all.

11. It was further submitted that the trial court thoroughly

examined each and every witness in the impugned judgment and

subsequently concluded that their testimonies did not inspire

confidence. Therefore, it was argued that there is no illegality in the

order passed by the trial court.

12. Regarding the recovery, it was submitted that the recovery has

not been supported by any independent witness. The statement of

the Investigating Officer, PW-9 Suresh Chandra, clearly indicates

that the recovery was made from a place accessible to many people,

and he himself admitted that many persons had access to the

location from which the recovery was made. As such, it was not a

case where the place of recovery was in the exclusive knowledge or

control of the accused-respondent, and therefore, the accused could

not be linked to the offense based solely on the recovery.

13. Furthermore, even assuming that the recovery was made, the

prosecution failed to prove that the alleged lathi contained human

blood or that the blood found on the lathi belonged to the same

blood group as the deceased. No FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory)

report was placed on record by the prosecution to establish this.

14. It was therefore argued that the trial court was justified in

acquitting the accused, as the prosecution had failed to prove

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (6 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the

crime in question.

Analysis and reasoning:

15. Having considered the arguments raised by the learned

counsel for both sides and after perusal of the record, it is clear

that the prosecution's case is essentially based upon the

statements of the eye-witnesses, namely PW-1 Kakku Singh, PW-2

Ramlal, and PW-3 Sohanlal, which is further supported by PW-11

Parmaram, upon whose statement, the FIR was lodged.

16. Further, the accused has been sought to be linked to the

offence based on the recovery of lathi corroborated by PW-9

Suresh Chandra, SHO, Police Station Loonkaransar, and the

medical evidence of PW-6 Dr. Jagdish Sankhla, who prepared the

post-mortem report and examined the body of the deceased.

17. We shall now deal with the three key elements highlighted by

the prosecution to allegedly connect the accused with the incident

in question:

(i) Statements of Eye-Witnesses: Upon perusal of Exh.P-2

(Parchbayan) and Exh.P-3 (FIR), it becomes evident that PW-11

Parmaram gave a specific statement stating that Ramlal and

Kakku Singh had informed him about the assault on Hanumanram

by one of the sons of Purkharam. He further stated that neither of

them disclosed the name of the son involved. It was also

mentioned that one son of Purkharam assaulted the deceased

while another was sitting on a wall. Parmaram also stated that

Hanumanram was unconscious and did not inform him about

anything about the incident. A reading of Exh.P-2 and Exh.P-3

clearly reveals that, from the outset, the prosecution did not

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (7 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

mention the presence of PW-3 Sohanlal, and only referred to

Ramlal and Kakku Singh. Furthermore, the name of the accused

was not mentioned in these initial statements. PW-11 Parmaram,

during his cross-examination, admitted that the names of the sons

of Purkharam were not specified by the eye-witnesses and

confirmed that he had given that statement truthfully. He further

contradicted himself by later claiming that Hanumanram had told

him that Mukh Ram, son of Purkharam, had beaten him - a

statement directly at odds with the earlier claim that Hanumanram

was unconscious and did not utter anything. Parmaram also stated

that Kakku Singh and others did not inform him about someone

sitting on a wall, which again contradicts Exh.P-2. He further

testified that he along with Aaduram, went to the police station

and submitted the report (Exh.P-2), and that police officials

arrived at the house of the deceased around 8:00 AM the following

morning. This claim is contradicted by Exh.P-3 and is not

supported by PW-8 Madan Singh, ASI. PW-11 Parmaram further

stated that when Kakku Singh brought Hanumanram to him,

Hanumanram was unconscious. However, he did not take him to

the hospital, explaining that he is a simple person and did not

know that he should have done so. He also stated that Hukmaram

was arrested on the same date but was released by the police

after four days. Thus, with respect to PW-11 Parmaram, it is clear

that he does not corroborate the presence of PW-3 Sohanlal at the

crime scene nor does he name any person as accused except

stating that one son of Purkharam was involved. Moreover, his

testimony fails to inspire confidence due to the numerous

contradictions highlighted above.

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (8 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

As far as the statements of PW-1 Kakku Singh are

concerned, a bare perusal of his statement under Section 161

Cr.P.C. dated 30.11.1995 (Exb.D-1) reveals that he stated that

around 8:30 PM, while he, Ramlal, and Sohanlal were traveling on

the right of way from the field of Purkharam, they saw the

accused-respondent Mukhram standing with a lathi in his hand,

and one person was lying on the road near him. Strangely, all

three of them were traveling in a camel cart, but they did not stop

and went ahead. At that point, the accused-respondent Mukhram

called out to them and asked them to take Hanumanram with

them. Thereafter, Mukhram climbed down from the wall and began

assaulting Hanumanram with a lathi. Upon seeing this, Ramlal,

Sohanlal, and Kakku Singh intervened and took Hanumanram,

who was unconscious and had many visible injuries on his body,

into their camel cart.

He further stated that they asked Mukhram why he had

assaulted Hanumanram, and Mukhram responded that

Hanumanram had entered his house. Mukhram then dragged him

out on the road and assaulted him. After the assault, Mukhram

returned to his agricultural field. Kakku Singh, giving the same

version, further stated that he had informed Parmaram about the

incident and specifically named Mukhram as the assailant. He did

not state that both sons of Purkharam had assaulted

Hanumanram, and he also affirmed that there was nobody else at

the scene except Mukhram.

However, during his testimony before the Court as PW-1,

Kakku Singh stated that when they reached near the agricultural

land of Purkharam, they saw one Moolaram sitting on a wall and

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (9 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

Hanumanram sitting on the road. Mukhram asked them to take

Hanumanram, but they did not stop and continued for about 10-

12 steps. Then they saw Mukhram deliver two blows to

Hanumanram, upon which he and Sohanlal went back to the site,

rescued Hanumanram from Mukhram, and placed him in their

camel cart.

He further stated that he did not ask Mukhram why he

assaulted Hanumanram and that Hanumanram was semi-

conscious at that time. However, during cross-examination, he

specifically admitted that they saw Hanumanram from a distance

of 4-5 steps and that Ramlal and Sohanlal identified Hanumanram

as their brother. He also admitted that they did not stop the cart

but saw Mukhram deliver two blows to Hanumanram and then

immediately went back to take him in the camel cart.

He further admitted that they lifted Hanumanram and placed

him in the camel cart, but his hands were not stained with

Hanumanram's blood. He also stated that the police took his

statement twice, although the Public Prosecutor submitted that it

was recorded only once.

When Kakku Singh was confronted with his earlier statement

(Exh. D-1), he specifically stated that Hanumanram was sitting,

not lying down, and that they did not stop after seeing him. He

also said that only Mukhram was present and assaulted

Hanumanram. He further admitted that when the assault

occurred, he did not intervene and stayed in the camel cart.

Additionally, he stated that he, Ramlal, and Sohanlal did not

inform Parmaram that Mukhram had assaulted Hanumanram or

that the two sons of Purkharam were involved. He admitted that

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (10 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

they did not have any conversation with Parmaram and were there

for only about a minute.

Thus, a perusal of the statements of PW-1 Kakku Singh

reveals significant contradictions between his statement under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exh. D-1) and his testimony in court. These

inconsistencies render the prosecution's version doubtful. It is also

hard to believe that if someone lifts a badly injured person who

was stained with blood (as per the testimony of PW-6 Dr. Jagdish

Sankhla), there would be no blood on their hands, especially when

blood was said to be flowing from the limbs as noted in Exh. P-4

(the police inspection memo of the body). Further, Exh. P-6, the

memo of recovery of the deceased's blood-stained clothes, also

shows that blood was oozing from the body and had soaked his

clothes. Additionally, the statements of PW-1 Kakku Singh are

contradicted by those of PW-11 Parmaram, who lodged the FIR.

As far as PW-2 Ramlal is concerned, he stated that when

they reached the site, he saw Hanumanram lying on the road. At

that moment, Mukhram shouted at them to stop the cart and

requested that Hanumanram be placed in it. However, Ramlal and

the others did not stop the cart and continued ahead. He further

stated that after they went ahead, Mukhram began assaulting

Hanumanram with a lathi. He claimed that Hanumanram was

unconscious, and they did not ask Mukhram anything, nor did he

know the reason for the assault. He added that they later

informed Parmaram that Hanumanram had been assaulted by

Mukhram and that they had rescued him from Mukhram's

clutches.

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (11 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

During the course of his examination, PW-2 stated that it

was pitch dark on the date of the incident and even the moon was

not visible. He further added that they could not see anyone from

a distance and only noticed a person lying on the road when they

came close. Despite having known Hanumanram for 30 years, he

admitted that they did not initially recognize him. He also stated

that Mukhram inflicted 4 to 5 lathi blows on Hanumanram, and

only thereafter did they intervene and placed Hanumanram in the

camel cart. Again, he stated that Hanumanram was unconscious

and did not tell them anything regarding the cause of the assault.

Interestingly, he contradicted his earlier version by stating

that Mukhram did not call them at all. Rather, they arrived at the

scene upon hearing cries of "Mare-Mare Re." He further claimed

that although they lifted Hanumanram, their hands were not

stained with blood. After handing over Hanumanram to Parmaram,

they did not stay at his place. However, he did inform Parmaram

that they had rescued Hanumanram from Mukhram's assault. He

did not state that one of Purkharam's sons was sitting on the wall

and the other was assaulting Hanumanram. On the contrary, he

stated that the person sitting on the wall had committed the

assault.

He further stated that his statement to the police was

recorded 5 to 6 days after the incident. During his cross-

examination, he admitted that he had not informed Parmaram

that Mukhram had assaulted Hanumanram.

Thus, a bare perusal of the statements of PW-2 reveals that

his very presence at the site is doubtful, and his conduct is

contrary to natural human behavior. As PW-1 had admitted that

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (12 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

Hanumanram was the brother of Ramlal and Sohanlal, it is strange

and unnatural that they did not stop the cart upon seeing him

lying on the road. PW-2 also contradicted himself by stating at one

point that Hanumanram was lying unconscious and, at another,

that they went to him only after hearing cries of "Mare-Mare Re."

Moreover, his claim that he lifted a badly injured and

bleeding Hanumanram without his hands being stained with blood

is highly unbelievable and inconsistent with the medical and

documentary evidence on record. Additionally, the fact that he

gave his statement to the police after a delay of 5 to 6 days and

that the prosecution did not exhibit that statement during trial

raises further doubt regarding his presence at the scene of

occurrence.

In view of the above, PW-2 Ramlal's testimony suffers from

serious contradictions and inconsistencies, rendering his evidence

unreliable and insufficient to support the prosecution's version.

As regards the statement of PW-3 Sohanlal, he stated that

Hanumanram was lying on the road and that Mukhram shouted at

them to stop the cart and place Hanumanram in it. However, they

continued moving forward and did not stop. Thereafter, he claimed

that they saw Mukhram deliver 5 to 7 lathi blows to Hanumanram.

Upon witnessing this, they stopped the cart, returned to the site,

and picked up Hanumanram. He further stated that they took the

lathi from Mukhram and went to the house of Hanumanram,

where they informed Parmaram that Mukhram had assaulted him.

During cross-examination, however, PW-3 contradicted

himself. He stated that he did not take Hanumanram to

Parmaram. He further claimed that they recognized the person

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (13 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

lying on the road as Hanumanram only after coming close. Despite

this, he admitted that he did not stop the cart and went ahead,

even refusing to take Hanumanram with them. He reiterated that

they had snatched the lathi from Mukhram and handed it over to

Ramlal. He also admitted that he and Hanumanram were cousins

related through their grandfather.

A bare perusal of the statements of PW-3 reveals that his

conduct as a witness is highly questionable and contrary to natural

human behavior. Although he admitted to recognizing

Hanumanram, who was his own cousin, he did not stop the cart

and even refused to help him initially. This is not consistent with

the reaction expected from a reasonable person in such a

situation.

Furthermore, there are significant contradictions regarding

the number of blows allegedly inflicted on Hanumanram. PW-3

claimed that 5 to 7 blows were given, whereas PW-1 mentioned

only 2 blows and PW-2 stated that 4 to 5 blows were given. These

inconsistencies cast doubt on the credibility of all three

eyewitnesses.

Notably, the presence of PW-3 at the scene has not been

corroborated by PW-11 Parmaram, who lodged the FIR based on

information received. Additionally, PW-2 had testified that it was

pitch dark at the time of the incident and that even the moon was

not visible. In such circumstances, the ability of the witnesses to

identify the assailant, particularly without any mention of a light

source in the site inspection report or otherwise, is highly

doubtful.

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (14 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

The trial court has rightly taken these factors into

consideration and held that the presence of the eyewitnesses at

the scene is doubtful. Their conduct does not inspire confidence,

as no reasonable person would behave in the manner described,

especially when their own brother or cousin was lying injured on

the road, allegedly being assaulted. Despite recognizing

Hanumanram, the failure to act promptly or responsibly further

erodes the credibility of their testimony.

Further, the number of injuries allegedly inflicted by

Mukhram differs across the statements of all three eyewitnesses.

Each of them has provided a different version regarding whether

the deceased was sitting or lying down, and whether he was

conscious or unconscious at the time. There are also

inconsistencies in their statements concerning what was

communicated to Parmaram, as well as conflicting accounts about

the condition of the deceased at the time of the incident and

during their alleged presence at the scene. Thus trial Court was

justified is not relying upon their statements.

(ii) Recovery: The prosecution has attempted to establish the

guilt of the accused on the basis of the recovery of a blood-stained

lathi, allegedly made pursuant to the information provided by the

accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It has been

shown that on 04.12.1995, after being arrested, the accused gave

information to the police officials that he was ready and willing to

get the recovery of a bamboo lathi used by him to assault

deceased, which was lying in his residential house.

Based on this disclosure, the police visited the site and

prepared a site plan and recovery memo, i.e., Exh. P-8 and Exh.

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (15 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

P-8A, wherein it was shown that the accused led the police to the

location and recovered the lathi from his house. The recovery

memo was signed by two allegedly independent witnesses--Aadu

Ram and Mamraj. While the prosecution has not examined

Mamraj, Aadu Ram has been examined.

However, a perusal of the statement of PW-9 Suresh

Chandra, SHO, Police Station Loonkaransar, reveals that although

the recovery was carried out pursuant to the alleged disclosure

made by the accused under Section 27, the location from where

the lathi was recovered was not in the exclusive possession of the

accused. He specifically admitted that the lathi was recovered

from the house of Purkharam, and that at the time of recovery,

the house was open and several people were residing there. He

further stated that the room from which the lathi was recovered

was accessible to all members of the family and was not locked.

Thus, it is evident that the place of recovery was not in the

exclusive knowledge or possession of the accused, but rather

accessible to multiple family members, thereby significantly

weakening the evidentiary value of the alleged recovery under

Section 27.Furthermore, no Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)

report has been placed on record to establish that the lathi was

blood-stained or that the blood on it matched the blood group of

the deceased. It has also not been established whether the blood,

if any, on the lathi was of human origin. In the absence of such

scientific corroboration, the alleged recovery loses much of its

probative value and cannot be safely relied upon to link the

accused to the crime.

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (16 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

(iii) Medical Evidence: A perusal of the medical evidence,

particularly the testimony of PW-6 Dr. Jagdish Sankhala and

Exhibit P-7, reveals that the deceased, Hanumanram, had

sustained 35 injuries, with excessive blood loss from his body. The

doctor opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhagie shock

caused by injury to lungs.

This medical evidence directly contradicts the statements of

the three eyewitnesses. PW-1 stated that only two blows were

inflicted, PW-2 claimed five blows, while PW-3 asserted that five to

seven blows were given whereas medical evidence proves 35

injuries (all antemortem) on the body of the deceased . These

inconsistent accounts raise serious doubt regarding the credibility

of the eyewitnesses and suggest that they may be planted

witnesses.

Moreover, while all three eyewitnesses placed the time of

death at around 9:00 PM on 29.11.1995, PW-6, the doctor who

conducted the postmortem at approximately 11:15 AM on

30.11.1995, gave a significantly different estimation. He stated

that rigor mortis was present in the entire body at the time of

examination. He explained that rigor mortis typically starts 6

hours after death, beginning from the upper body and progressing

downward, and that full-body rigor mortis is generally established

within 24 hours.

Based on his observation of the body, he opined that death

had occurred approximately 24 to 48 hours prior to the

postmortem. This observation is further supported by Exhibit P-7,

which also records that the estimated time of death was less than

24 to 48 hours before the postmortem.

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (17 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

18. This discrepancy is of great significance and supports the

defence's case that Hanumanram was assaulted earlier by

Hukmaram and not at the time claimed by the prosecution. It

aligns with the argument that the deceased may have been

attacked earlier, and his body subsequently dragged from his

house to the right of way, where he was later found unconscious.

19. Further, PW-9 Suresh Chandra, Investigating Officer,

admitted during cross-examination that when he inquired with

neighbours near the place of incident, none had any knowledge of

the event. He also stated that the accused was brought to the

police on 02.12.1995 by his relatives, after which he was arrested.

Additionally, both PW-8 and PW-9 admitted that they had no prior

knowledge of the whereabouts of the accused and had not

conducted any investigation in that regard.

20. In view of the above inconsistencies and contradictions--both

in witness statements and medical findings--and in the absence of

any conclusive forensic or recovery evidence, it is clear that the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused

beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated

these facts and acquitted the accused of the alleged offences.

21. It is merely a case of possibility of guilt, and not one where

guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. This aspect

has been recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Thammaraya v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2025

(3) SCC 590, wherein the Court distinguished the critical gap

between "may be guilty" and "must be guilty". The Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed as under:

"16. It is also a fundamental principle that a court can convict an accused only if their guilt is established

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (18 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

beyond reasonable doubt and not merely on the possibility of guilt. The gap between "may be guilty"

and "must be guilty" is significant, separating uncertain speculations from definitive conclusions. Thus, it is the duty of the prosecution to elevate its case from the realm of "may be true" to "must be true"

22. Thus, taking guidance from the principles laid down in the

above-mentioned judgment, it becomes evident that the

distinction between "may be guilty" and "must be guilty" is both

significant and fundamental to criminal jurisprudence. A conviction

must be based on certainty and conclusive evidence, not on

possibilities or conjectures. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly

considered the entire aspect of the matter and has justifiably

acquitted the accused of the offence in question.

23. Consideration in Appeals Against Acquittal: The Hon'ble

Supreme Court, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of

Karnataka, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581, while considering the

principles to be kept in mind during the hearing of an appeal against

acquittal, summarized the legal position as under:

8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised as follows: -

8.1 The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

8.2 The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3 The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to

[2025:RJ-JD:20677-DB] (19 of 20) [CRLA-584/1997]

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."

24. Taking guidance from the above-mentioned judgment, it is clear

that the prosecution has failed to establish that the judgment of

acquittal suffers from any perversity or is based on a misreading of the

material available on record. Furthermore, this is not a case where no

other reasonable view is possible. In fact, in the present case, the view

pointing towards the guilt of the accused is weak and improbable,

whereas the alternative view favouring the accused is much stronger

and more plausible.

25. Thus, upon considering the entire record, we find that there

is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court

dated 24.05.1997. Accordingly, the order of acquittal is upheld,

and the appeal stands dismissed.