State vs Umed Singh And Ors ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 13251 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Umed Singh And Ors ... on 16 September, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:41245-DB]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 511/2000

State of Rajathan
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1. Umed Singh S/o Shri Shiv Singh,
2. Dalpat Singh S/o Shri Samel Singh,
3. Nathu Singh S/o Bachan Singh
4. Smt. Rasal Kanwar W/o Shiv Singh
All B/c Rajput, R/o Melawas, PS Mathania, District Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. B.S. Rathore, Adv.



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

                                    Judgment

16/09/2025

(BY THE COURT) : Per Hon'ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against

the judgment and order dated 17.02.1999, passed by learned

District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.129/1997,

whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents

from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 & 304-B

IPC.

Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy

are that on 03.06.1997, accused-respondent No.2 Dalpat Singh

submitted a written report (Ex-P/27) to SHO Boraj Singh (PW-16),

PS Mathania to the effect that last evening at about 7:00 PM,

Madan Kanwar, wife of accused respondent No.1- Ummed Singh,

had poured kerosene on her and lite the fire and consequent to

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:54:35 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41245-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLA-511/2000]

which, Madan Kanwar died. The complainant and wife of Khim

Singh opened the door of the room. It was further stated that the

marriage of Madan Kanwar was solemnized with Ummed Singh

about two and half years ago.

Upon receiving such written report, Police registered a marg

report, which was sent for investigation to the concerned SDM.

After thorough investigation, the concerned SDM submitted a

written report before the concerned Police Station. On the basis

which, Police registered FIR No.77/1997 for offences under

Sections 498A, 302, 304B, 201 IPC against the accused

respondents and started investigation. On completion of

investigation, Police filed challan against the accused respondents.

Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and

explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302, 498-A,

304-B IPC to the accused respondents. They denied the charge

and sought trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as seventeen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents

in support of its case.

The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused-respondents examined Bhanwar

Kanwar as DW-1 and Omaram as DW-2.

Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both

the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the

documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide

judgment dated 17.02.1999 acquitted the accused-respondents

from offence under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B IPC. Hence this

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:54:35 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41245-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLA-511/2000]

appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-

respondents.

During the pendency of the criminal appeal, accused

respondents No.1- Ummed Singh (husband of the deceased) and

No.2- Dalpat Singh had passed away and vide order dated

04.09.2025, this Court dismissed the present criminal appeal as

abated qua accused respondents No.1 & 2. Now, the appeal

remains pending only against accused respondents No.3- Nathu

Singh and No.4- Smt. Rasal Kanwar (mother-in-law of the

deceased).

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the

learned trial court failed to appreciate the statements of the

witnesses in the correct perspective, thereby committing a grave

and serious error of law in acquitting the accused respondents of

the charges under Sections 302, 498-A, and 304-B of the IPC. It

was further contended that an initial marg report of the incident

was registered, following which the concerned Sub-Divisional

Magistrate (SDM) conducted an investigation, concluding that the

deceased- Madan Kanwar, died due to strangulation and burn

injuries. Since Madan Kanwar died within two and a half years of

her marriage, the SDM lodged a formal FIR, specifically alleging

that the accused respondents subjected the deceased to cruelty

for dowry and murdered her. The prosecution has successfully

established its case beyond all reasonable doubt before the trial

court by adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence.

However, the learned trial court disregarded all the evidence,

including circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution,

and consequently acquitted the accused respondents. It is

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:54:35 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41245-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLA-511/2000]

submitted that the trial court, in passing the impugned judgment,

failed to properly appreciate the evidence or exercise its judicious

mind, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and the loss of

substantial justice.

Per contra, counsel representing the accused-respondents

contends that, in this case, the primary accused was respondent

No. 1-- Ummed Singh, the husband of the deceased- Madan

Kanwar, who has since passed away. The counsel further submits

that accused-respondents Nos. 3 and 4 resided separately from

the deceased- Madan Kanwar, and no specific allegations have

been made against them regarding the commission of any

offence. Additionally, counsel emphasizes that the learned trial

court meticulously examined all aspects of the matter and has

rendered a comprehensive and well-reasoned order of acquittal

after a thorough evaluation of the evidence on record, which does

not warrant any interference from this Court.

We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the

parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well

as record of the case.

In this case, an initial marg report was lodged by the

Police, which was subsequently referred for investigation to the

concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM). The SDM conducted a

thorough inquiry into the matter and concluded that the deceased,

Madan Kanwar, died as a result of strangulation coupled with burn

injuries. Based on these findings, the SDM registered an FIR

against the accused respondents.

Admittedly, the testimonies of Dr. Trehan (PW-11) and the

postmortem report (Ex.P/15) substantiate that the deceased died

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:54:35 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41245-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLA-511/2000]

due to asphyxiation from strangulation, followed by burning of the

body. These medical reports establish a clear causal link between

the cause of death and the manner in which it occurred. However,

upon meticulous examination of the statements of other

witnesses, it becomes evident that the evidentiary value is limited

in relation to all accused respondents. Witnesses such as Mohan

Singh (PW-1), Shaitan Singh (PW-2), and Chhotu Singh (PW-10)

are identified as motbir witnesses, and their testimonies do not

directly implicate any of the accused respondents. The testimony

of Sohan Singh (PW-3), father of the deceased; Devi Singh (PW-

6); Bhawani Singh (PW-9), brother of the deceased; and Dhariyav

Kanwar (PW-17), mother of the deceased, primarily implicate

accused respondent No. 1- Ummed Singh, husband of the

deceased, and allege that he subjected her to cruelty for dowry

and was responsible for her murder. Notably, this allegation was

admitted by Ummed Singh himself, which lends credence to the

suspicion against him. The testimonies of Brigadier Udai Singh

(PW-4), Bhojraj Singh (PW-7), and Pabu Singh (PW-8) are limited

to their presence at the scene and their observation of the

deceased's body, without providing substantive evidence linking

the other accused respondents to the commission of the crime.

Furthermore, there is a conspicuous absence of connecting

evidence against accused respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The primary

allegations pertain solely to accused respondent No. 1, and with

his subsequent demise, the prosecution's case against him is

rendered moot. The prosecution has failed to produce any cogent

evidence establishing the involvement of accused respondents No.

3 and 4 in the alleged cruelty or the death of the deceased.

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:54:35 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41245-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLA-511/2000]

In light of the above, the evidence on record does not

substantiate the involvement of all accused respondents beyond

the allegations made against accused respondent No. 1. The

medical and eyewitness testimonies establish the manner of death

and implicate the husband, but lack sufficient corroboration to

extend culpability to the other respondents. Therefore, the case

against accused respondents No. 3 and 4 cannot be sustained,

and their involvement remains unproven based on the available

evidence.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya

Pradesh vs. Phoolchand Rathore reported in 2023 CriLR 724,

while observing that courts are generally reluctant to interfere

with an order of acquittal, recognized that such interference is

warranted when it becomes evident that the acquittal was based

on an entirely flawed reasoning process, legally erroneous, and

involved a perverse approach to the facts of the case. In such

circumstances, where the order of acquittal has led to a grave and

substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court may reverse the

acquittal and convert it into a conviction. In support of this

principle, the Court relied upon its prior judgments, emphasizing

the exceptional nature of such interference to rectify substantial

errors in the acquittal order. these are:-

21. In State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169, reiterating the same view it was observed:

"8. ... This being an appeal against acquittal, this Court would be slow in interfering with the findings of the High Court, unless there is perverse appreciation of the evidence which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and if the High Court has taken a plausible

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:54:35 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41245-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLA-511/2000]

view this Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal passed in favour of the accused and if two views are possible and the High Court had chosen one view which is just and reasonable, then also this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the judgment of the High Court."

22. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020) 11 SCC 174, it was observed:

"190. ... Reversal of a judgment and order of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have upon analysis of the evidence on record found the accused to be "not guilty". ..."

Similarly in the case of State of State of Uttrakhand Vs. Sanjay

Ram Tamta, reported in (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 159,' the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed as under:--

"6. Trite is the principle that the appellate courts would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially since the presumption of innocence that is always available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the acquittal and unless there are very substantive and compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt; appellate courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal.

7. Recently, in Surender Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid down the principle in the following manner in SCC para 24:

24 It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:54:35 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41245-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLA-511/2000]

acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 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."

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the

opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its

case against the accused-respondents No.3 & 4 for offence under

Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The

appellant/State has failed to show any error of law or on facts on

the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the

judgment under challenge. The judgment passed by the learned

trial court is detailed, reasoned and perfectly justified. Therefore,

the same does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality

warranting any interference from this Court.

With these observations, the present criminal appeal has no

substance and the same is hereby dismissed.

Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

                                   (SANDEEP TANEJA),J                                  (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J


                                    62-MS/-




                                                            (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:54:35 AM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)