Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lala Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 September, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 281/2019
Lala Ram S/o Choga Ram, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Morra, P.s. Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.) (At Present Lodged
In Sub Jail, Merta, Distt. Nagaur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
Mr. Punit Choudhary
Mr. Surendra Bora
Mr. Sunil Fageria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. CS Ojha, PP
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Judgment
16/09/2025 (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur)
1. The instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has
been preferred by the accused-appellant Lalaram S/o Shri
Chogha Ram, R/o Morarra, Police Station Merta City, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan, against the judgment dated 5.10.2019
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, District Nagaur
(hereinafter referred to learned trial court for short) in
Criminal Case No. 36/2017- State v. Lalaram whereby the
accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for the
following offences:
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB] (2 of 12) [CRLAD-281/2019]
Under Section 302 of the IPC - Life imprisonment
with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment
Under Section 120B of the IPC - Life imprisonment
with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment
[both the sentences were ordered to be run
concurrently]
2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the controversy are
that the complainant Shankar Ram filed a complaint under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Merta on 25.04.2017 against a total of
sixteen persons, including the accused-appellant Lalaram. It
was alleged that the complainant's elder brother Pabu Ram
had no children and, therefore, after his death, his wife Smt.
Sundari Devi was the sole heir to his estate. On the basis of
the said complaint, an FIR bearing No. 142/2017 came to be
registered at Police Station Merta City on 03.05.2017 under
Sections 302/120-B IPC against the appellant Lalaram, his
wife Sharda Devi, Smt. Sonki Devi (mother of Lalaram),
Ramkishan S/o Choga Ram Jat, Smt. Sushila and other
accused persons, in all sixteen in number. It was alleged that
deceased Sundari Devi was the wife of late Shri Pabu Ram,
elder brother of the complainant, and since there was no
child, she was the only legal successor to the estate. The
complainant and his family members were taking care of her.
It was further alleged that the accused Lalaram, with an
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB] (3 of 12) [CRLAD-281/2019]
intention to dishonestly misappropriate the properties of
deceased Sundari Devi, on 12.04.2016, took her from village
Chundiya to his village Morarra, where he along with his wife
and mother allegedly detained her and administered
intoxicating medicines. The complainant stated that he made
repeated attempts, along with other respectable villagers, to
bring back Sundari Devi, but the accused persons did not
permit him to meet her and assured that they would
themselves leave her back at Chundiya. Having apprehension
of danger to her life, the complainant filed proceedings under
Section 97 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M., Merta on 22.04.2016.
He further alleged that when he met Sundari Devi at Morarra
on 20.04.2016, she expressed apprehension that the accused
would murder her, and also disclosed that her thumb
impressions had been obtained on certain papers by the
accused. Subsequently, on 26.04.2016 at about 3:30 PM,
accused Lalaram along with 40-50 persons allegedly brought
the dead body of Sundari Devi to village Chundiya, broke
open the lock of her house and entered therein, whereupon
an FIR No. 138/2016 dated 26.04.2016 came to be registered
at Police Station Merta City. It was also alleged that prior to
her death, ornaments and cash belonging to Sundari Devi
were removed by her sister. The complaint was filed by the
complainant alleging conspiracy and murder of Sundari Devi
by the accused persons to grab her property.
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB] (4 of 12) [CRLAD-281/2019]
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR
No.142/2017 was registered at Police Station Merta City
against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and
120-B IPC on 03.05.2017.
4. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-
sheet against the accused-appellant for the offenses under
section 302 and 120B IPC.
5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the
charges under Sections 302 and 120B IPC, to the accused-
appellant, who denied the charges and sought trial.
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as
38 witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also
produced documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-56.
7. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating
circumstances put to him, stating that the prosecution
witnesses had deposed falsely, that the evidence was
fabricated, and that he was innocent. The accused-appellant
did not lead any defence evidence, and the defence evidence
was accordingly closed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in
the present case, there is an inordinate delay of more than
one year in lodging the FIR, and no satisfactory explanation
has been provided by the prosecution for such delay. It is
argued that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB] (5 of 12) [CRLAD-281/2019]
the prosecution case as it casts serious doubt on the
genuineness of the FIR and raises the possibility of
fabrication, afterthought or false implication.
9. He further submits that the complainant as well as other
material prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and have
not supported the prosecution case, and in the absence of
any independent, cogent or corroborative evidence to
establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution version
becomes doubtful. In such circumstances, conviction cannot
be sustained, and the accused is entitled to acquittal by
extending the benefit of doubt.
10. Learned counsel has also urged that the prosecution has
placed heavy reliance on the FSL report to prove the offense.
However, the expert concerned has failed to support or justify
the conclusions recorded therein. In the absence of
examination and explanation of the FSL findings by a
competent expert, as contemplated under Section 45 of the
Indian Evidence Act and Section 293 Cr.P.C., the said report
loses its evidentiary value.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
doctor who conducted the post-mortem categorically opined
that the deceased did not show any symptoms of poisoning,
nor were there clinical signs suggestive of death due to
morphine alkaloid or mild pesticides. This medical opinion
directly contradicts the prosecution theory of poisoning and
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB] (6 of 12) [CRLAD-281/2019]
renders the FSL report unreliable. An incomplete or
procedural deficient FSL report, lacking proper certification,
chain of custody or expert testimony, cannot be treated as
admissible evidence either under Section 293 Cr.P.C. or
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
12. Learned counsel further submits that when conviction is
based solely on the FSL report, but the medical officer who
conducted the post-mortem does not corroborate its findings,
the prosecution case becomes inherently weak. In the
absence of consistency between medical opinion and scientific
evidence, the cause of death itself remains unproved. As per
settled judicial precedents, unless medical and forensic
evidence corroborate each other, the prosecution cannot be
said to have discharged its burden. Therefore, in the facts of
the present case, the appellant deserves to be acquitted by
giving him the benefit of doubt. Hence, the appellant is
entitled to acquittal.
13. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and
has supported the findings recorded by the learned trial court
while convicting the appellant in the present case.
14. We have considered the submissions made before this
Court and has minutely gone through the record of the trial
court.
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB] (7 of 12) [CRLAD-281/2019]
15. In the present case, admittedly, the FIR has been
registered after delay of one year, without explaining any
reason or sufficient cause, wherein, an allegation has been
levelled against the accused-appellant that he has poisoned
Smt. Sundari Devi in order to grab her property. It is also an
admitted fact that the complainant and the accused-appellant
are the close relatives of the deceased. During trial, all the
independent prosecution witnesses including the complainant
PW-1 Shanker Ram and the other residents of the village,
have not supported the prosecution story and they have been
declared hostile. Therefore, the testimony of doctors
becomes relevant and important for deciding the present
case.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sekaran Vs.
State of Tamilnadu (Cr. Appeal No.2294/2010), decided on
12.12.2023 held as under:
"It is trite that merely because there is some delay in
lodging an FIR, the same by itself and without anything
more ought not to weigh in the mind of the courts in all
cases as fatal for the prosecution. A realistic and
pragmatic approach has to be adopted, keeping in mind
the peculiarities of each particular case, to assess
whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is an
afterthought to give a coloured version of the incident,
which is sufficient to corrode the credibility of the
prosecution version. In cases where delay occurs, it has
to be tested on the anvil of other attending
circumstances. If on an overall consideration of all
relevant circumstances it appears to the court that the
delay in lodging the FIR has been explained, mere delay
cannot be sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case;
however, if the delay is not satisfactorily explained and it
appears to the court that cause for the delay had been
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB] (8 of 12) [CRLAD-281/2019]
necessitated to frame anyone as an accused, there is no
reason as to why the delay should not be considered as
fatal forming part of several factors to vitiate the
conviction."
17. In the two post-mortem reports it has been mentioned
that the final opinion can be given after receiving the report
of FSL. As per FSL report, the result of the examination
reveals that the samples, which were sent for examination
gave positive tests for the presence of morphine alkaloid and
cypermethrin (a pyrethroid pesticide). In view of these
reports, the testimony of the doctors examined before the
learned trial court becomes vital and significant.
18. PW-31 Dr. Sita Ram in his statement stated that he was
one of the member of the Board, who conducted post-
mortem of the deceased Sundari Devi and as per his
statement, there was no sign of any injury on the body of the
deceased and he has stated that how the morphine alkaloid
and cypermethrin can be administered to a patient. He
further stated that cypermethrin is an insecticide, which is
being used for agricultural and domestic purposes. He has
further stated that in the FSL report it has not been stated as
to what is the quantity of morphine alkaloid and
cypermethrin found in the body of the deceased and,
therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that cause of death
in the present case is morphine alkaloid or cypermethrin. He
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB] (9 of 12) [CRLAD-281/2019]
has further stated that there are no signs of poisoning due to
morphine alkaloid and cypermethrin.
19. PW-32 Dr. Afzal, who was the member of the Board, who
conducted autopsy in the present case, has stated that since
in the FSL report, the quantity of morphine alkaloid and
cypermethrin has not been mentioned, therefore, it cannot be
said that the cause of death in the present case is morphine
alkaloid and cypermethrin. The cross-examination of
witnesses PW-32 Dr. Afzal is relevant and the same is
reproduced as under:
;g lgh gS fd ekWfQZu o lkbijesFkzhu ls e`R;q gksrh gS rks iksLVekVZe
fjiksVZ esa ,Dlfifl;k o lkbZuksfll ikbZ tkrh tks fd e`rdk ds 'kjhj esa
ugha FkhA ;g lgh gS fd ekWfQZu o lkbijesFkzhu vxj e`rdk uss fy;k
gksrk rks iksLVekVZe ds le; thHk dk ckgj vkuk] uhyk gksuk] vaxqfy;ksa
ds VhIl dk uhyk gksuk] eqag esa ls >kx gksuk ik;k tkrk tks fd e`rdk
ds 'kjhj esa ugha ik;k x;kA ;g lgh gS fd vxj e`rdk ds 'kjhj esa
ekWfQZu o lkbijesFkzhu gksrk rks mlds iksLVekVZe djrs le; e`rdk ds
'kjhj esa mlds FkksjsDl o ,CMkWxu vkWxZu] E;qdl escajsu datsLVsM ikbZ
tkrhA ;g lgh gS fd vxj e`rdk dh e`R;q ekWfQZu o lkbijesFkzhu ls
gksrh rks mlds efLr"d ds ckgj dh f>fYy;k datsLVsM gksrh tks fd
laqnjh ds ugha FkhA ;g lgh gS fd lh oh , ¼lsfjczks osldqyj ,DlhMsaUl½
vxj fdlh ejht dks mPp jDrpki ;k efLr"d dh vU; chekfj;ksa o
ejht dh o`)koLFkk gks rks mlds dkj.k gksrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ
ih- 34 esa eSaus efLr"d ds nkfgus vkSj tks CyM DysD'ku ik;k gS oks lh
oh , chekjh ds dkj.k gks ldrk gS vkSj blls ejht ds ydok gks
ldrk gS vkSj blls e`R;q Hkh gks ldrh gSA eSaus tc iksLVekVZe fd;k o
tc eq>ls jk; ekaxh ml le; eq>s e`rdk dh iwoZ esa gqbZ chekjh ds
laca/k esa dkxtkr ugha crk;s x;s vkSj uk ghs ml laca/k esa eq>ls jk; yh
xbZA ;g lgh gS fd ;fn e`rdk dk iwoZ bykt pyk o iwoZ esa tks chekjh
ikbZ xbZ mlds ckjs esa eq>s crk;k tkrk rks e`rdk dh e`R;q dk dkj.k lh
oh , Hkh gks ldrk FkkA
20. PW-33 Dr. RK Panwar, who was also the member of the
Board, who conducted the post-mortem in the cross-
examination, has also stated as under:
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB] (10 of 12) [CRLAD-281/2019]
";g lgh gS fd esjs }kjk iksLVekVZe ds nkSjku e`rdk ds 'kjhj
ds ckg~; o vkarfjd ijh{k.k ds le; fdlh izdkj dh ikW;tfuax ds
y{k.k ugha ik;s x;sA ;g lgh gS fd ekfQZu ,YdsykW;M o
lkbjijesFkzhu ds lsou ls ,LQsfDl;k ls gqbZ e`R;q ds lkbZu feyrs gSA
bl ekeys esa izn'kZ ih- 42 iksLVekVZe djrs le; e`rdk dk psgjk uk
rks ihyk Fkk] uk gh mlds gksaBks o uk[kwuksa dk jax vlkekU; FkkA uk
gh mldk 'kjhj ckg~; o vkarfjd uhyk FkkA uk gh mldh thHk ckgj
vkbZ gqbZ FkhA uk gh mlds eqag ls >kx jDrjaftr mifLFkr FkkA ;g
lgh gS fd e`rdk ds 'kjhj esa ;fn ekfQZu ,YdsykW;M o
lkbjijesFkzhu gksrk rks mijksDr y{k.k iksLVekVZe ds le; ij ik;s
tkrs] tks fd ugha ik;s x;sA
vxj e`rdk ds 'kjhj esa ekfQZu ,YdsykW;M o lkbjijesFkzhu
gksrk rks e`R;q ds le; tks iksLVekVZe fd;k x;k mlesa vkarfjd
vo;oksa esa mlds Vs~fd;k o ysfjXl Hkkx yky gksrk o lkFk esa >kx
gksrkA mlds QsQMs+ xgjs yky jax ds gksrs o muds vanj jDr fefJr
>kx gksrkA g`n; ds nkfgus Hkkx esa xgjs jax dk yky [kwu bdVBk
gksrkA LVkWed ij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ jDrL=ko ugha FkkA mlds
FkksjsDl o ,CMkfeuy vkWxZUl esa fdlh esa dats'ku ugha FkkA vxj
e`rdk ds 'kjhj esa ekfQZu ,YdsykW;M o lkbjijesFkzhu dh fo"kkDrrk
gksrh rks mijksDr 'kjhj ds vkarfjd vax datsLVsM ik;s tkrsA izn'kZ
ih- 42 iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ns[kdj eSa dg ldrk gwa fd tkfgjk rkSj ij
e`rdk ds 'kjhj esa dksbZ tgj ds y{k.k ekStwn ugha FksA blfy, e`rdk
dh e`R;q fdlh tgj ds lsou ls gqbZ gks ,slk esa izn'kZ ih- 42
iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ns[kdj ugha dg ldrkA eSa ih ,e vkj izn'kZ ih-
42 esa vafdr y{k.kksa dks ns[kdj ;g dg ldrk gwa fd e`rdk dh e`R;q
tgj ls ugha gqbZA "
21. PW-34 Dr. Rajendra Prajapat, who was treating doctor of
the deceased has stated that the deceased was suffering from
hypertension and because of that, the blood could have been
found in her brain. The deceased was suffering from CVA
disease and the cause of death could be high blood pressure
in such cases. The patients in these cases are given Tab.
Tramadol for pain relief, which contains morphine.
22. PW-35 Dr. Rajesh Jain, who was working on the post of
Professor (Medicine) in the JLN Hospital, Ajmer has stated
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB] (11 of 12) [CRLAD-281/2019]
that Smt. Sundari Devi was admitted on account of certain
illness and as she was suffering from paralysis.
23. The statements of the doctors as discussed hereinabove
clearly negates the fact that Smt. Sundari Devi had been
administered poison (morphine alkaloid and cypermethrin) as
the symptoms after administering poison as stated above,
were not present on the body of the deceased. The opinion
of the doctors is in stark contradiction to the report of FSL
and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the report of FSL
cannot form the sole basis of conviction in the present case.
24. A close reading of the statements of aforesaid witnesses
create a doubt that whether the poison was administered to
Smt. Sundari Devi or not. It is a fact, which has come on
record that Smt. Sundari Devi was critically ill and was
suffering from paralysis and for her treatment, she was given
number of medicines and as per the medical opinion, some of
the medicines contained morphine for the pain relief. We
further note that all the prosecution witnesses including the
complainant PW-1 Shanker Lal has not supported prosecution
case and thus, had been declared hostile. The FIR itself was
registered after a delay of more than one year without
explaining any plausible reason. We are of the view that in
view of the evidence, which has been brought on record,
more particularly, the statements of the doctors, it raises a
doubt with respect to the prosecution case. There is no
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41238-DB] (12 of 12) [CRLAD-281/2019]
credible evidence available on record, which shows or
suggests that Smt. Sundari Devi died on account of
administering poison to her by the accused-appellant. It is
also a fact that the accused-appellant was a close relative
(sister's son) and after the death of husband of Sundari Devi,
he had taken her for her well being.
25. In the nutshell, the evidence available on record does
not inspire confidence to prove allegation levelled in the
present case.
26. In view of the discussions made above, the present
appeal merits acceptance and, therefore, the same is
allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated
dated 5.10.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Merta, District Nagaur in Criminal Case No. 36/2017 against
the accused-appellant is quashed and set aside. The
appellant be released from custody, if he is not required in
any other case.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
68-CPgoyal/-
(Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 04:01:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
