Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Mukesh Kumar (2025:Rj-Jd:41170-Db) on 16 September, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:41170-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 106/2025
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Gangaram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o.
Jawali, Tehsil Rani, Dist Pali, Raj.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Judgment
16/09/2025
1. The present leave to appeal has been filed under Section 419
of BNSS against the judgment and order dated 10.06.2024 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali in
Sessions Case No.18/2014 (CIS No.73/2014) to the extent vide
which the accused-respondent Mukesh Kumar has been acquitted
of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 120-B and 449
of IPC.
2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the original
record of the case as well as impugned judgment.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present case are that an FIR
No. 91/2014 for the offences under Sections 147,148, 149, 458 &
302 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. was registered on the
written report submitted by Deepa Ram (PW-1). As per the FIR,
on 16.06.2014 in the night at around 08:00 P.M. his father-in-law
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 03:41:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41170-DB] (2 of 6) [CRLLA-106/2025]
Nava Ram (since deceased) was sitting in the "pole" of his
residence, then Ramesh Kumar, Pema Ram, Mukesh Kumar and 5-
7 other persons, armed with Lathis and sariya came there on the
motor-cycle and Jeep. They forcibly entered in the 'pole' and
enquired from Nava Ram about Laxmi, who is daughter of Pema
Ram. Suddenly, Ramesh Kumar, Pemaram and Mukesh Kumar with
intent to commit murder, inflicted lathi blows on the head and
other parts of the body of Nava Ram. In the written report Deepa
Ram, his wife Kasni Devi and his sister-in-law Shanti Devi and
other members of the family were shown as eye-witnesses of the
incident. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away from the spot
after some time of his arrival at the spot. At that time, Mohan Lal
and Vaktaram also came there and carried Nava Ram to Mahaveer
Hospital, Sumerpur.
4. After investigation, the police filed challan against the
accused Ramesh Kumar, however, the investigation against
Mukesh Kumar and Pema Ram was kept pending under Section
173(8) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the charges were framed against the
accused Ramesh Kumar who pleaded not guilty and sought to be
tried.
5. After recording the statements of total eight prosecution
witnesses, the supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the
accused Mukesh Kumar since absconded. The respondent Pema
Ram was added as an additional accused on the application filed
by the complainant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on 04.01.2016.
Thereafter, the charges were framed against Mukesh Kumar and
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 03:41:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41170-DB] (3 of 6) [CRLLA-106/2025]
Pema Ram on 30.08.2016. Both of them pleaded not guilty and
sought to be tried.
6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 21 witnesses
and exhibited Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/43 documents and Article-1 to
Article-6. The trial court examined the accused persons under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., who did not produce any oral evidence but
exhibited Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/7 documents in their defence.
7. After completion of trial against respondent-Mukesh Kumar,
the learned trial Court acquitted him vide judgment and order
dated 10.06.2024. Hence, the present leave to appeal has been
filed.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused-
respondent-Mukesh Kumar was present along with accused
Ramesh Kumar and Pema Ram. All the three accused persons
came to the house of complainant party with intent to commit the
offence of murder. He has further submitted that all above
accused inquired from the Nava Ram about Laxmi, who is
daughter of Pema Ram, sister of Ramesh Kumar and Mukesh
Kumar and then Ramesh Kumar inflicted a lathi blow on the head
of Nava Ram resulting in his death. There was common intention
of all the accused including the respondent - Mukesh Kumar to kill
Nava Ram. He, thus, urged that the trial court has committed
grave error while acquitting the respondent- Mukesh Kumar of the
charges levelled against him. He should have been convicted for
the offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C.
9. After considering the arguments advanced by learned Public
Prosecutor and perusing the evidence available on record, we are
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 03:41:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41170-DB] (4 of 6) [CRLLA-106/2025]
of the view that the trial court has not committed any error in
acquitting the respondent- Mukesh Kumar of the charges levelled
against him. The evidence available on record does not indicate
that Mukesh Kumar inflicted any blow on the person of the
deceased Nava Ram. The complainant Deepa Ram (P.W.1) in his
second statement recorded on 22.09.2016 has categorically stated
that out of three accused, only Ramesh was armed with Lathi and
there was no weapon in the hands of the rest of accused. He also
stated in his examination-in-chief that Ramesh inflicted lathi blow
on Nava Ram and rest of the accused were standing by. The
daughter of Pema Ram viz. Laxmi was residing with him. Nava
Ram was also residing with him. The accused had no enmity with
Nava Ram and, rather, were annoyed with him since the daughter
of Pema Ram was residing with him.
10. In the examination-in-chief of Smt. Kasni (PW-2) (wife of
PW-1 -Deeparam) recorded on 20.12.2016, she stated that
Ramesh Kumar inflicted lathi blow on the head of Nava Ram. She
did not specifically state that Mukesh Kumar also inflicted any
injury to Nava Ram. It is pertinent to mention here that in her first
statement recorded on 09.04.2015, she categorically stated that
Mukesh and Pema Ram did nothing with Nava Ram. When
statement of P.W. 2 - Kasni recorded on 20.12.2016 is compared
to her first statement, we find that there are great improvements
in her second statement which shows that she is not a truthful
witness.
11. Smt. Shanti Devi (PW-3) also attributed the fatal injury on
the skull of Nava Ram to Ramesh Kumar. Though, she stated that
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 03:41:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41170-DB] (5 of 6) [CRLLA-106/2025]
Pema Ram also tried to inflict injury on Nava Ram but on their
cries, all the three accused ran away from the spot. It is also
important to note that in her first statement recorded on
07.05.2015, no overt act was attributed to Mukesh Kumar. As per
her statement, Pema Ram and Mukesh Kumar both were standing
by and Ramesh Kumar inflicted the lathi blow to Nava Ram.
12. Laxmi (PW-4) totally denied the prosecution story, hence,
she was declared hostile by the prosecution.
13. Devendra Singh (P.W. 19) who investigated the matter, in his
cross examination admitted the suggestion of the defence that
after completing the investigation, Mukesh Kumar was not found
involved in this matter.
14. Learned trial court after considering the FIR as well as oral
evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly the statement
of complainant Deeparam and the statements of eye-witnesses
viz. Smt. Kasni, Shanti Devi and Laxmi as also the Investigation
Officer Devendra Singh arrived at the conclusion that Mukesh
Kumar had no common intention to commit the murder of Nava
Ram. Mukesh Kumar had no enmity with Nava Ram (since
deceased). In this background, we are of the opinion that the
findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment
dated 10.06.2024 while acquitting the accused Mukesh Kumar are
based on an apropos appreciation of evidence available on record
and do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity
whatsoever warranting interference therein.
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 03:41:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41170-DB] (6 of 6) [CRLLA-106/2025]
15. As a consequence, we find no reason to grant leave to
appeal, hence, the application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed
as being devoid of merit.
16. The record be returned to the trial court forthwith.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
16-SunilS/Shahenshah-
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 03:41:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
