Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Takhat Singh And Anr vs State on 12 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:38812]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 298/1995
1. Takhat Singh S/o Hamer Singh (Since Dead)
2. Lal Singh S/o Hamer Singh
Both B/c Rajput, R/o Iswal, PS Gogunda, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON ::: 12/11/2025
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON ::: 01/09/2025
BY THE COURT :-
1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the
judgment and order dated 13.07.1995, passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur, in
Sessions Case No.4/1993 (190/1992), whereby the learned Trial
Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:
Name of the Offence for Substantive Fine and
accused which sentence default
convicted sentence
Takhat Singh 6 years RI Rs.1,000/- and in
Section 307 IPC default in payment
of fine to undergo 6
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38812] (2 of 8) [CRLA-298/1995]
months SI
Section 324 IPC 1 year RI Rs.500/- and in
default in payment
of fine to undergo 3
months SI
Lal Singh 6 years RI Rs.1,000/- and in
Section 307/34 default in payment
of fine to undergo 6
IPC months SI
Section 324/34 1 year RI Rs.500/- and in
IPC default in payment
of fine to undergo 3
months SI
All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, it was brought to the
notice of this Court that appellant Takhat Singh had expired on
25.02.2010. The death report submitted by the SHO concerned
dated 06.05.2025 is taken on record, thus the appeal against him
stood dismissed as abated. The present appeal thus survives only
in respect of appellant Lal Singh.
2. The brief facts, as unfolded from the record, are that PW 13
Shankar Singh lodged a written report on 12.07.1992 at about
10:30 PM on oral information by Manilal (PW 1) at the General
Hospital, Udaipur, alleging that his mother Smt. Vardibai had lent
a sum of ₹3,000/- to Amarsingh three years earlier. When
repayment was sought, a quarrel ensued.
2.1. On the night of the occurrence, at about 9:30 PM, Amarsingh
allegedly abused Smt. Vardibai outside the house. When the
complainant protested, Bhursingh called him down. Bhursingh and
his wife Smt. Bhuri, armed with lathis, approached from one side,
while Takhatsingh, brother of Bhursingh, rushed from the opposite
direction with a knife, shouting threats to kill. Shortly thereafter,
Lal singh and Takhatsingh's wife also reached at the crime scene.
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38812] (3 of 8) [CRLA-298/1995]
2.2. At that time, the complainant's wife Smt. Sawa Bai and
brother Heersingh were also present. Takhatsingh inflicted a knife
blow on Sawa Bai's left shoulder near the chest and another on
her right arm. Thereafter, he stabbed Shankar Singh near his left
shoulder and below the armpit, and subsequently injured
Heersingh on the left side of his abdomen.
2.3. Hearing the commotion, Smt. Vardibai and her husband
arrived. On their cries for help, the Head Constable and police
personnel from the nearby outpost reached the spot and
transported the injured to the Udaipur Hospital.
2.4. On the basis of the report, FIR No.70/1992 was registered at
Police Station Gogunda under Sections 307 and 34 IPC. During
investigation, a site plan (Exhibit P-3) was prepared, and the
injured were medically examined (Exhibits P-11 to P-13, with X-
ray reports P-14 to P-16). The police seized blood-stained clothes
and later arrested the accused. Pursuant to disclosure under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-19), a knife was
recovered (Exhibit P-7). The FSL report (Exhibit P-10) confirmed
the presence of human blood on the seized articles.
2.5. Upon completion of investigation, the case was committed to
the Court of Sessions, Udaipur. By order dated 27.08.1992, the
learned Court discharged Smt. Bhuri Bai and Smt. Chandni Bai,
framing charges under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 IPC against
the remaining accused. During pendency of the trial, accused
Bhursingh expired and proceedings against him were abated. The
prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, while the defence
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38812] (4 of 8) [CRLA-298/1995]
examined two witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The trial
culminated in the conviction and sentence as detailed above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant Lal Singh has challenged his conviction on the ground
that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are
unsupported by the material evidence and are inconsistent with
the settled principles of criminal law. It is contended that the
prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by accused
Takhatsingh, one of which was on his head a vital part indicating
that he too was assaulted during the same occurrence. The
omission to explain these injuries creates grave doubt about the
veracity of the prosecution version and suggests suppression of
the true genesis of the incident.
3.1. Material contradictions further permeate the prosecution
evidence. PW 6 Heersingh, in his examination-in-chief, deposed
that he and his brother were caught by Bhursingh and Lalsingh,
while Sawa Bai was restrained by Bhuri Bai and Chandni Bai, and
Takhatsingh inflicted knife blows on Shankar Singh. However, in
cross-examination, he contradicted himself and stated that the
accused were armed with stones rather than lathis, and no
weapon was attributed to Lalsingh in the FIR. Similarly, PW 8
Sawa Bai did not state that anyone restrained Shankar Singh at
the time of assault. PW 13 Shankar Singh, when confronted with
his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. D/2),
admitted that he had not stated that Lalsingh or Bhursingh had
held him.
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38812] (5 of 8) [CRLA-298/1995]
3.2. He further alleged that these inconsistencies, omissions, and
improvements seriously undermine the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses and fail to establish the specific
participation of each accused beyond reasonable doubt.
3.3. It is further stated that the medical evidence also does not
support a conviction under Section 307 IPC, as no doctor has
opined that any injury was grievous or dangerous to life.
Consequently, the essential ingredients of the offence punishable
under Section 307 IPC are not made out. Thus, the appeal of the
appellant Lal Singh may be allowed and he may be acquitted from
the aforementioned charges.
4. Learned Dy.G.A. has opposed the submissions advanced by
counsel for the appellants and supported the judgment passed by
the learned trial Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned Dy.G.A. for the State and perused the record as made
available to the Court.
5.1. During pendency of the present appeal, appellant Takhat
Singh expired, and the appeal, insofar as it relates to him, stands
abated. It is also noted that during trial, Smt. Bhuri Devi and Smt.
Chandni Bai were discharged, and that order has attained finality.
5.2. The record further reveals that Takhat Singh expired during
pendency of the trial. The allegations levelled against Smt. Bhuri
Devi and Smt. Chandni Bai , were limited to catching hold of the
complainant's brother, and no specific overt act was attributed to
them. In these circumstances, the case of the present appellant
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38812] (6 of 8) [CRLA-298/1995]
Lalsingh stands on identical footing and is not distinguishable in
any material respect.
5.3. Before examining the liability of the appellant Lal Singh, it
becomes imperative to analyse the applicability of Section 34 IPC
to the facts of the present case. It is now a well-settled
proposition of criminal jurisprudence that Section 34 embodies the
principle of joint liability for acts done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention. To attract its application, the
prosecution must prove (i) the existence of a common intention to
commit a particular crime, and (ii) participation of the accused in
the commission of that act in furtherance of such intention. The
essence of liability under Section 34 lies not merely in the doing of
any act jointly but in the meeting of minds, a prior concert,
whether premeditated or developed at the spur of the moment, to
commit the specific offence. It is equally well settled that mere
presence of an accused at the scene, or association with the
principal offender without any evidence of active participation or
prior consensus, cannot by itself justify the invocation of Section
34 IPC.
5.4. In the instant case, the material on record does not disclose
any cogent evidence to suggest that Lal Singh shared any
common intention with the principal accused, Takhat Singh, to
commit the assault in question. The prosecution witnesses have
rendered highly inconsistent and contradictory versions regarding
the alleged role of Lal Singh. PW-6 Heersingh stated in his
examination-in-chief that he and his brother were caught hold of
by Bhursingh and Lal Singh, but later in his cross-examination, he
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38812] (7 of 8) [CRLA-298/1995]
admitted that he did not give such a statement to the police and
further stated that the accused persons were holding stones and
not lathis. The FIR also does not attribute any weapon to Lal
Singh. PW-8 Sawa Bai did not state at all that anyone restrained
Shankar Singh when the assault took place. PW-13 Shankar
Singh, the informant, when confronted with his police statement
(Ex. D/2), admitted that he had not stated before the
investigating officer that Lal Singh or Bhursingh had caught hold
of him. Thus, the evidence of these three principal witnesses,
when read together, fails to establish any consistent or reliable
account of active participation or shared intent on the part of Lal
Singh. The entire occurrence was spontaneous, arising out of a
sudden quarrel regarding repayment of a trivial loan of ₹3,000/-,
and there is no indication that Lal Singh knew of, much less
shared, the intention of Takhat Singh to inflict knife blows or cause
grievous injury.
5.5. The law on the point is equally clear that Section 34 IPC
cannot be invoked on the basis of surmise or conjecture. There
must be convincing proof that the accused performed some act,
however minimal, in furtherance of the common intention. The
record herein is absolutely silent as to any such act by Lal Singh.
His alleged presence at the scene, unaccompanied by any overt
conduct or participation in the assault, does not bring him within
the sweep of Section 34. The contradictions between the versions
of PW-6, PW-8, and PW-13, coupled with the admitted omission of
material facts from the FIR and statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C., create a serious doubt about the veracity of the
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38812] (8 of 8) [CRLA-298/1995]
prosecution's claim that Lal Singh assisted or facilitated the
assault. The medical evidence also confines the act of inflicting
injuries solely to Takhat Singh, and no incriminating recovery or
circumstance links Lal Singh to the actual commission of the
offence. In the absence of any credible proof of common intention
or concerted action, the conviction of Lal Singh with the aid of
Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained in law. The benefit of doubt
must, therefore, necessarily enure to him.
5.6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is persuaded
to hold that the conviction of appellant Lal Singh is unsustainable.
The evidence on record does not establish his culpability beyond
reasonable doubt. The incident was spontaneous and devoid of
premeditation, and no independent act of aggression has been
attributed to him.
6. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by appellant Lal Singh is
allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
13.07.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur, are set aside insofar as
they relate to him. The appellant Lal Singh is acquitted of all the
charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled and discharged.
6.1. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record of the case
be sent back to the learned Trial Court forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
3-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:18:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
