State Of Rajasthan vs Nanu And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 13963 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Nanu And Ors on 8 October, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
             D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 116/1992

State of Rajasthan
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                        Versus
1. Nanu s/o Uda Gujar
2. Bheru s/o Balu Gujar
3. Kajor s/o Uda Gujar
4. Ladu s/o Nanda Gujar
5. Gheesa s/o Nanda Gujar
6. Uda s/o Bhagtavar, Gujar
7. Sita Ram s/o Uda, Gujar
8. Ugma s/o Chhitar, Gujar
9. Rameshwar s/o Balu Ram

All residents of Village Bharlia, P.S. Bigod, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Respondents




For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
For Respondent(s)            :     Ms. Aditi Sharma, Amicus Curiae



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment

Reserved on 19/08/2025 Pronounced on 08/10/2025

Per Hon'ble Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

State assailing the judgment dated 10.01.1991 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No.180/87,

whereby the accused-respondents herein were acquitted of the

charges against them.

1.1. At the outset, the learned Public Prosecutor has produced a

report dated 06.08.2025, submitted by the Station House Officer,

Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara, regarding the present

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (2 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

status of the accused persons named in the FIR. As per the said

report, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the

accused-respondents, namely Uda s/o Bagtadar Gurjar, have

passed away. The aforesaid report is taken on record. Accordingly,

the present adjudication is being confined to the surviving

accused-respondents, namely, Nanu, Bheru, Kajod, Ladu, Gheesa,

Sitaram, Ugma, and Rameshwar.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the

year 1987 and the present appeal has been pending since the year

1992.

3. Brief facts of the case, as presented before this Court by

Mr.Ramesh Dewasi learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf

of the appellant-State, are that on 16.09.1987 at around 8:30

p.m., one Shravan gave a verbal information at Police Station

Bigod, to the effect that Smt. Shanti w/o Ganga, was assaulted by

accused Bheru, Gheesa, Nanu, and Ugma, who pelted stones at

her, abused, and beat her while she was returning from her field in

the evening of the same day. On reporting the incident at home,

Goru along with Shravan approached the accused persons to

question them, whereupon Nanu, Bheru, and Ugma, were present.

Soon thereafter, accused persons, namely Rameshwar, Bheru,

Sitaram, Nanu, Ugma, Nanda, Kajod, Gheesa, Ladu, and Uda,

armed with lathis and kulhadis, with an intention to kill attacked

them. Accused Gheesa inflicted a lathi blow on the complainant-

Shravan's head, following which he fell down, thereafter, all the

accused persons attacked Goru and dragged him inside Nanda ki

Gubadi.

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (3 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

3.1. It was further stated that at the spot, witnesses Jeetu and

Pokhar attempted to intervene. Complainant-Shravan escaped and

ran towards the police station to inform about the said incident.

On intimation, Head Constable Mohanlal and L.C. Harishankar

reached the scene with others namely, Deva, Bheru, Bheru s/o

Bhoja, Jeetu, and Omkar and found Goru lying injured, bleeding

from the head, and demanding water, while accused Nanda and

his sons Ladu and Gheesa were present. Mohanlal, Head

Constable, recorded the statement of the injured Goru (Ex.P.4)

after seeing Goru's condition. Thereafter, Goru was taken to the

hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries en route.

3.2. Investigation was thereafter set in motion, pursuant to which

the accused-respondents were apprehended, and recoveries were

effected at their instance.

3.3. Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan,

the charges were read over and explained to the accused-

respondents and charges were framed against accused Bheru

under Sections 148, 323, 302/149 and 323/149 IPC, and against

the remaining accused persons under Sections 147, 323, 302/149

and 323/149 IPC. The accused-respondents denied the same and

claimed trial, whereupon the trial commenced.

3.4. During the trial, the prosecution produced 20 witnesses and

46 documentary exhibits for examination, while in defence, 1

witness was produced and 5 documents were exhibited. The

accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

wherein accused-respondents Gheesa and Ladu stated that

deceased Goru had attacked their father, causing injuries to him.

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (4 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

They asserted their innocence and alleged false implication in the

present case.

3.5. Upon hearing the contentions of both the parties and

considering the material and evidence placed on record, the

learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondents giving

them the benefit of doubt, vide the impugned judgment dated

10.01.1991, against which the present appeal has been preferred

by the appellant-State.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

appellant-State contended that notwithstanding the availability of

ample and cogent evidence, including the dying declaration

directly implicating the accused-respondents, the testimonies of

prosecution witnesses, and the recoveries substantiating the

prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Trial Court

acquitted the accused-respondents on the basis of minor

contradictions and discrepancies, which is unjustified and contrary

to the law as well as the facts and material available on record.

4.1. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Trial

Court erred in rejecting the testimony of five prosecution

eyewitnesses, namely, Nanda PW.17, Bheru PW.6, Pokhar PW.2,

Jeetiya @ Jeetu PW.9, and Omkar PW.20, who were present at the

place of occurrence at the relevant time. Their presence at the site

was explained and probable, being members of the complainant's

family/agricultural field. While minor discrepancies existed

regarding sequence of blows and attribution of weapons, the

broad substratum remained consistent; the accused persons

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (5 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

formed an unlawful assembly, armed with lathis and kulhadis, and

inflicted injuries on the deceased.

4.2. It was further submitted that Shravan PW-1, being present at

the spot, furnished a first-hand account of the assault, specifically

naming the principal accused and describing the weapons and

overt acts. His testimony remained consistent with the FIR and

found corroboration from Pokhar PW-2 and Kajod PW-3. Though

minor discrepancies emerged in cross-examination, no

contradiction on material particulars was elicited, thereby

rendering them reliable witness whose depositions inspire

confidence.

4.3. It was also submitted that Banne Singh (PW-19), the then

Deputy Superintendent of Police, deposed that during the course

of investigation he identified Nanda (PW-17), Bheru (PW-6),

Jeetiya (PW-9), Pokhar (PW-2), Omkar (PW-20) & Dakhi as

eyewitnesses of the incident in question. Although the presence of

Dakhi could not be duly established, the remaining eyewitnesses

have been examined and their testimonies substantially

corroborate the prosecution version, and therefore deserve due

consideration.

4.4. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Head

Constable Mohanlal (PW-5), on reaching the spot, recorded the

statement of injured Goru (Ex.P-4), wherein he categorically

named all the accused, consistent with the FIR, the complainant,

the other eyewitnesses, and his own testimony. It was further

urged that PW-6, PW-9, and PW-20 though not injured,

corroborated the prosecution version by proving the presence of

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (6 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

the accused, the aftermath of the incident, and material

documents like the site plan and seizure memos, thereby lending

ample support to the prosecution case.

4.5. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that Dr.

Gulabchand PW-11, who conducted the postmortem examination

and proved the report (Ex.P-7), deposed that the deceased had

sustained 19 injuries in all, and specifically opined that the head

injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death. He opined that the cause of death was shock resulting from

the said head injury.

4.5.1. It was further submitted that Dr. Gulabchand also examined

Shravan, the complainant (PW-1), and proved his injury report

(Ex.P-8). Such medical findings align with the testimony of PW-1,

the FIR, and the dying declaration, thereby furnishing strong

corroboration to the prosecution case that the accused-

respondents assaulted deceased Goru and Shravan with deadly

weapons, resulting in the fatal injuries which caused Goru's death.

4.6. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that recoveries

were effected by Investigating Officer Banne Singh (PW-19) at the

instance of the accused-respondents, including a lakdi (Ex.P-17)

at the instance of accused Nanu, kulhadis at the instance of

accused Bheru and Nanda, as well as lathis recovered from other

accused persons. All the recovered weapons were duly sealed,

sent for forensic examination, and the FSL report has been placed

on record as Ex.P-45. It was urged that the recoveries, coupled

with the forensic report, lend further corroboration to the

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (7 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

prosecution version and firmly connect the accused-respondents

with the commission of the crime in question.

4.7. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, contended that the

learned Trial Court, while delivering the impugned judgment of

acquittal, failed to duly appreciate the evidence on record in its

proper perspective. The cumulative effect of the testimonies of the

eyewitnesses, the dying declaration, the medical opinion, the

scientific reports, and the depositions of prosecution witnesses

forms a consistent and corroborative chain of evidence which

unmistakably establishes the guilt of the accused-respondents. It

was urged that the learned Trial Court did not apply the settled

principles of law correctly, thereby rendering the impugned

judgment vitiated by serious legal infirmities. Hence, the

judgment deserves to be interfered with and quashed, and the

accused-respondents deserve to be convicted in accordance with

law.

5. Per Contra, Ms. Aditi Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae for the

accused-respondents while opposing the aforesaid submissions

made on behalf of the appellant-State, submitted that the

prosecution case was having serious legal infirmities, in the light

of which the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned

judgment of acquittal by granting benefit of doubt to the accused-

respondents.

5.1. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court rightly

discarded the prosecution evidence, of the 5 alleged eyewitnesses

who were all either related or interested witnesses and whose

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (8 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

testimonies suffered from material contradictions regarding the

identity of the assailants, the fatal blow, the weapons used, and

the sequence of events; some even admitted in cross-examination

that they arrived after the occurrence or lacked a clear vantage

point. Such inconsistencies strike at the very root of the

prosecution case, and in the absence of a consistent substratum of

truth, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the ocular evidence

and recording acquittal.

5.1.1. It was also submitted that Shravan (PW-1), on the basis of

whose information Ex.P-21 was prepared, initially stated that

Jeetu and Pokhar were present at the place of incident and had

intervened to save them. However, in his examination-in-chief he

contradicted himself by deposing that though the entire village

had gathered, no one except him intervened. Likewise, Pokhar

(PW-2) in his examination-in-chief stated that accused Nanu,

Gheesa, and Bheru were armed with kulhadis while the others

carried lathis; yet, in his re-examination, he categorically stated

that he had not seen any beating incident. Similarly, Jeetiya alias

Jeetu (PW-9) denied witnessing any assault on Goru and, contrary

to the prosecution version, deposed that Shravan never informed

where Goru had been taken when he (Shravan) himself was found

injured. Such contradictions and inconsistencies render the

testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses unreliable and incapable

of forming the basis of conviction.

5.1.2. It was further submitted that Bheru (PW-6), Nanda (PW-

17), and Omkar (PW-20), who were also projected as

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (9 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

eyewitnesses by the Investigating Officer Banne Singh (PW-19),

have in fact contradicted the prosecution version and furnished

mutually inconsistent accounts. Significantly, PW-17 Nanda went

so far as to depose that the deceased, along with others, had

gone to fight with the accused-respondents, whereas PW-6 Bheru

and PW-20 Omkar outrightly denied having witnessed the alleged

occurrence. Such divergent and inconsistent testimonies seriously

undermine the credibility of the prosecution case.

5.1.3. It was also submitted that Shanti (PW-18), whose alleged

assault is said to have triggered the entire incident, deposed that

she accompanied Goru to Nanda ki Gubadi, where the incident

took place and the accused persons dragged him inside. According

to her, she personally witnessed the occurrence. However, this

version directly contradicts the testimony of Shravan (PW-1), the

complainant, who stated that the incident began outside the

gubadi and only thereafter was Goru dragged inside by the

accused. Significantly, neither of the two named each other in

their testimonies as having been present at the spot, which

further undermines their credibility as eyewitnesses. These

mutually inconsistent accounts create serious doubt regarding the

very origin and place of occurrence of the incident. In such

circumstances, where eyewitnesses contradict one another on

material particulars, it is difficult to accept one version over the

other, and consequently, the benefit of doubt must necessarily

enure to the accused-respondents.

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (10 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

5.2. It was further submitted that the so-called dying declaration

is unreliable, as it is inconsistent with the testimonies of

prosecution witnesses regarding both, the assailant and the

weapon used; the circumstances and timing of its recording are

doubtful, particularly in the absence of a proper medical certificate

of fitness; the language employed indicates tutoring and contains

improbable narration; and, most significantly, it lacks independent

corroboration from medical or forensic evidence, thereby

rendering it unjustified in law, to form the basis of conviction.

5.2.1. It was also submitted that though two police officers,

namely Mohanlal PW.5 and Harishankar PW.7, were present at the

place of incident when the dying declaration was recorded, none of

the said officers have cared to endorse the dying declaration Ex.P.

4, which casts a doubt on the credibility of the alleged dying

declaration. It was further urged that no evidence has been put

forward with respect to the fitness of the deceased at the time of

giving the statement; thus, the same shakes the prosecution

story.

5.2.2. It was further submitted that the prosecution failed to

produce Deva and Bheru s/o Kajod, though cited as witnesses,

and no explanation was offered for their non-examination. Such

withholding of material witnesses creates an adverse inference

against the prosecution. It was also submitted that the testimony

of Mohanlal (PW-5) suffers from material contradictions, thereby

rendering his evidence unreliable and further weakening the

prosecution case.

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (11 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

5.2.3. It was further submitted that PW-6, in his cross-

examination, stated that Goru disclosed the names of the

assailants and the weapons used, but in the same breath also

admitted that he saw the dead body of Goru and stated, "लाश लाने

के बाद मेरी निशानी कराई थी". This creates two possibilities: either PW-6

signed the alleged dying declaration after the dead body was

brought, or the dying declaration was not recorded in his presence

at all. In either case, the credibility of this witness stands seriously

impeached, and thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly

disbelieved such testimony.

5.2.4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Jeetu

(PW-9) initially deposed that he did not know what Goru stated as

he was standing at a distance, yet later introduced the names of

the accused-respondents, thereby contradicting himself. Coupled

with other material discrepancies in his testimony, his evidence is

unreliable and unworthy of credence.

5.2.5. With respect to PW-20 Omkar, it was submitted that

although he claimed that his statement was recorded on the very

next day of the incident in question; the record reflects that it was

in fact recorded belatedly on 12.10.1987, whereas the incident

had allegedly occurred on 16.09.1987. This glaring discrepancy

between his deposition and the record, coupled with the

unexplained delay, renders him a doubtful and procured witness,

not a genuine witness to the alleged dying declaration, thereby

further undermining the credibility of Ex.P-4.

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (12 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

5.2.6. It was further submitted that the prosecution has not

produced any evidence to establish the fitness of the deceased to

render the alleged statement, as no medical certificate or proof of

mental and physical condition was brought on record. This

omission fatally undermines the reliability of the alleged dying

declaration.

5.2.7. It was thus submitted that the alleged dying declaration

(Ex.P-4) is riddled with contradictions, delayed and discrepant

witness statements, absence of medical certification of fitness,

and lack of corroboration, rendering it wholly unreliable. The

learned Trial Court had rightly discarded it and extended the

benefit of doubt to the accused.

5.3. It was further submitted that the alleged recoveries are

inconsistent with the prosecution evidence--while PW-19 claimed

a lakdi was recovered from Nanu, PW-1 attributed a kulhadi to

him; likewise, a kulhadi was shown as recovered from Bheru

though no witness assigned such a weapon to him. Such

contradictions render the recoveries doubtful and devoid of

evidentiary value.

5.3.1. It was submitted that the alleged recoveries stand

discredited in light of the FSL report, as no blood was detected on

the recovered kulhadi, and in respect of the lathis, either the

quantity was insufficient for testing or the blood group remained

undetermined, thereby failing to establish any nexus between the

seized weapons and the crime in question.

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (13 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

5.3.2. It was also submitted that the recovery proceedings also

suffer from material infirmities, inasmuch as of the two alleged

recovery witnesses, Bholu was never produced before the Court,

while the other, Jamnalal, was not subjected to any examination,

thereby rendering the recoveries unsupported by any independent

and reliable testimony.

5.4. It was submitted that given the contradictions in evidence,

the unreliable dying declaration, and infirm recoveries, the

prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all

reasonable doubts, and thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly

extended the benefit of doubt, vide the impugned judgment of

acquittal, which does not call for any interference in the instant

appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

7. Before adverting to the merits of the appeal, this Court

deems it appropriate to first examine the very foundation of the

prosecution case, namely, the FIR and the oral report (Ex.P-21)

given by Shravan PW.1. This Court observes that PW.1 has given

contradictory statements regarding the preparation and

submission of this report, initially stating that it was submitted to

Moti Singh at the Police Station, and later claiming it was written

at the Bus Stand. Such inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the

reliability of his testimony. Furthermore, if a written report was

indeed submitted, its absence from the record raises further

questions about its authenticity. In view of these contradictions,

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (14 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

the evidentiary value of Ex.P-21, and the FIR Ex.P-7 lodged on its

basis, is substantially undermined, and the prosecution has failed

to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable

doubts.

8. Having examined the genesis of the prosecution case, it is

now necessary to scrutinize the testimonies of the alleged

eyewitnesses who were projected as the backbone of the

prosecution version. The prosecution produced twenty witnesses

for examination, of whom PW-1 Shravan, PW-2 Pokhar, PW-6

Bheru, PW-9 Jeetu, PW-17 Nanda, and PW-18 Shanti were

projected as eyewitnesses. A close scrutiny of their depositions

reveals serious inconsistencies.

8.1. PW-1 Shravan, the complainant and alleged injured witness,

deposed that Jeetu and Pokhar were present at the place of

incident and intervened, yet in cross-examination admitted that

except himself, no one else tried to intervene. He claimed the

incident began outside Nanda ki Gubadi and that Goru was later

dragged inside. His version is inconsistent with PW-18 Shanti, who

categorically deposed that she accompanied Goru inside the

gubadi where the assault took place. Notably, neither Shravan nor

Shanti named each other as being present at the scene, thereby

creating doubt in regard to both accounts.

8.2. PW-2 Pokhar, while initially deposing that he saw accused

Nanu, Gheesa, and Bheru armed with kulhadis, later admitted in

re-examination that he did not see the beating at all.

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (15 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

8.3. PW-9 Jeetu outrightly denied witnessing the assault, further

undermining the prosecution case.

8.4. PW-6 Bheru and PW-20 Omkar, though cited as eyewitnesses

by the Investigating Officer, contradicted themselves and

furnished divergent accounts.

8.5. PW-17 Nanda went so far as to depose that the deceased

and his party had attacked the accused-respondents, thus

reversing the prosecution narrative.

8.6. It is a settled proposition that where eyewitnesses contradict

each other on the very genesis, place, and manner of incident,

their evidence cannot form the basis of conviction.

9. In view of such material contradictions in the ocular

evidence, it is deemed appropriate to turn to the next crucial piece

of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, namely, the dying

declaration (Ex.P-4). This Court observes that the prosecution

relied heavily on the alleged dying declaration of the deceased

Goru recorded by PW-5 Head Constable Mohanlal; however, Ex.P-4

is fraught with infirmities inasmuch as no medical certificate of

fitness was obtained prior to its recording, the accompanying

police officers though present did not attest or endorse the

declaration, PW-6 Bheru himself admitted that he signed the

document after the body was brought thereby casting grave

suspicion on its contemporaneity, and the very witnesses cited as

present at the recording have contradicted one another on

material particulars, rendering the declaration wholly unsafe for

reliance.

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (16 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

9.1. In light of these infirmities, this Court is of the considered

view that Dying Declaration Ex.P-4 does not inspire confidence. It

is well settled in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (Criminal

Appeal No. 184 of 1956, decided on 25.09.1957) and reaffirmed in

P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka ((2003) 6 SCC 443,

decided on 25.07.2003) that a dying declaration can be relied

upon only if it is found to be voluntary, truthful, and free from any

element of suspicion. When measured against this standard, the

declaration in the present case falls short of the requisite

reliability, and the learned Trial Court was therefore fully justified

in disbelieving the same.

10. Once the dying declaration is found unreliable, the credibility

of other supporting witnesses assumes even greater importance.

In this context, the testimony of PW-20 Omkar requires close

scrutiny.

10.1. This Court observes that PW-20 Omkar, projected as an

eyewitness, deposed that 5-6 policemen were present at the place

of occurrence; however, the record and the depositions of police

witnesses establish that only Head Constable Mohanlal (PW-5) and

L.C. Harishankar (PW-7) were present. This glaring inconsistency

not only casts doubt on the genuineness of PW-20's version, but

also raises a serious question as to whether he was actually

present at the scene or was later introduced as a procured

witness. Such a contradiction materially weakens the prosecution

case by undermining the reliability of one of its alleged

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (17 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

eyewitnesses and further dilutes the evidentiary value of the

ocular account.

10.2. This discrepancy also reflects adversely on the quality of

investigation, inasmuch as the Investigating Officer failed to

reconcile or explain the divergence between the record and the

testimony of PW-20. The lack of clarity regarding the number and

presence of police personnel at the crucial stage of recording the

dying declaration creates an impression of careless or selective

investigation, which adds to the doubt surrounding the

prosecution case.

10.3. This Court further observes that the investigation in the

present case suffers from the following serious deficiencies:

(i) Delay in recording statements - Material witnesses, including

PW-20 Omkar, had their statements recorded nearly a month after

the incident, casting doubt on their spontaneity and reliability.

(ii) Non-examination of cited witnesses - Witnesses such as

Deva and Bheru s/o Kajod, though cited in the charge-sheet, were

not produced during trial without explanation, warranting an

adverse inference against the prosecution case.

(iii) Contradictions in site plan - The site plan prepared by the

Investigating Officer does not align with the ocular testimonies,

particularly regarding the place of occurrence and presence of

villagers, and no effort was made to reconcile these discrepancies.

(iv) Defective recovery proceedings - The alleged recoveries are

unsupported by independent testimony, as one recovery witness

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (18 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

was not examined and the other was not subjected to cross-

examination, rendering the seizures unreliable.

(v) Defective handling of dying declaration - No medical

certification of the deceased's fitness was obtained at the time of

recording Ex.P-4, and no independent witness was associated,

thereby casting doubt on its authenticity.

These lapses go beyond mere irregularities and strike at the root

of the prosecution case, reflecting a lack of fairness and

thoroughness in investigation.

11. Having noted the serious lapses in the investigation, this

Court now proceeds to examine the medical evidence, which

though establishing the homicidal nature of death, must be seen

in conjunction with other infirmities in the case. This Court

observes that PW-11 Dr. Gulabchand opined that the deceased

sustained nineteen injuries, with one head injury sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death. While the medical

evidence establishes that Goru's death was homicidal, it does not,

by itself, fix culpability on the accused-respondents, especially

when ocular and documentary evidence suffer from serious

infirmities.

12. This Court further observes that the recoveries alleged to

have been effected at the instance of the accused-respondents do

not lend any support to the prosecution case. The FSL report failed

to establish the presence of human blood of any identifiable group

on the seized kulhadis and lathis. Moreover, of the two recovery

witnesses, one was never produced before the Court while the

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (19 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

other was not subjected to cross-examination, depriving the

proceedings of independent corroboration. It is well settled that

recovery evidence is only corroborative in nature and cannot by

itself sustain a conviction when the primary evidence is doubtful

(Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 7 SCC 781).

In the present case, given that the ocular account and the alleged

dying declaration are riddled with contradictions and infirmities,

the uncorroborated recoveries cannot bolster the prosecution case

and are, therefore, wholly unreliable.

13. 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-:

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;

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (20 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

(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;

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;

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (21 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

(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."

14. 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 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.

15. 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.

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (22 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]

16. 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.

17. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.

17.1. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./481

B.N.S.S., each of the surviving 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 for grant of leave, the surviving 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.

17.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of

the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.

18. This Court is thankful to Ms. Aditi Sharma, who has rendered

her assistance as Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the accused-

respondents, in the present adjudication.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

skant/-

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)