Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhopal Singh vs State on 17 September, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 275/1988
Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh
Resident of Sevatalao, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 228/1988
1. Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, Resident of Sevtalao
2. Gena Ram S/o Pithaji, Resident of Juna
3. Pannalal S/o Pemaji, Resident of Village Mundara
All Residents of Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 239/1988
1. Bhopal Singh S/o Shri Sher Singh
2. Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh
3. Inder Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh
All Residents of Sevtalao, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 244/1988
1. Madan Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh
2. Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh
All Residents od Sevtalab, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (2 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 276/1988
Bhopal Singh S/o Guman Singh Rajpurohit
Resident of Sevtalab, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 220/2005
Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu Singh
Resident of Sevtalab, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
Mr. Sanjay Mathur
Mr. Mridul Jain
Mr. L.D. Khatri
Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, Public Prosecutor
with
Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, Public Prosecutor
Mr. Suresh Kumbhat with Mr. Sheetal
Kumbhat
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
Reserved on 29/07/2025
Pronounced on 17/09/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant criminal appeals, being D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos.
275/1988, 228/1988, 239/1988, 244/1988 and 276/1988, have
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (3 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the accused-
appellants, namely, Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Prabhu Singh
S/o Guman Singh, Gena Ram S/o Pithaji, Pannalal S/o Pemaji,
Bhopal Singh S/o Sher Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Bhopal Singh,
Inder Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Madan Singh S/o Bhopal Singh,
Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, and Bhopal Singh S/o Guman
Singh Rajpurohit, assailing the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 19.05.1988 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Pali, in Sessions Case No. 58/1984 (State of Rajasthan Vs.
Narpat Singh & Ors.).
1.1. Alongside, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 220/2005 has been
preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by accused-appellant
Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu Singh against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2005 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali, in Sessions
Case No. 70/1999 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Singh).
1.2. It is pertinent to note that although both judgments of
conviction and sentence arose out of the same incident, the trials
were conducted separately on account of the fact that accused-
appellant Bhanwar Singh remained absconding during the initial
proceedings and was apprehended at a later stage. Hence, upon
his arrest, a separate trial came to be conducted against him.
1.3. In these circumstances, since both sets of proceedings
emanate from the same occurrence, the present appeals have
been heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts as recorded and
considered in the judgment dated 19.05.1988 shall be taken as
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (4 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
the factual foundation, and the present judgment in the appeals
against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence
shall equally govern and apply also to the appeal preferred by
accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh.
2. In the aforesaid background, it is considered appropriate to
first notice the convictions recorded and the sentences awarded to
the accused-appellants by the learned Trial Court, which are as
under:
2.1. Accused-appellants Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Prabhu
Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o Guman Singh, Madan
Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh,
Bhopal Singh S/o Shri Sher Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Bhopal
Singh, Inder Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh: (for Murder of Hiralal)
Conviction u/s. Sentence & In Default of
Fine payment of fine
further undergo
302 and 302/149 of Life Imprisonment Two month's
I.P.C. a/w fine of Rs.1000/- additional
(each of the imprisonment
accused-appellants)
2.2. Accused-appellants Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Prabhu
Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o Guman Singh, Madan
Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh,
Bhopal Singh S/o Shri Sher Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Bhopal
Singh, Inder Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, Gena Ram S/o Pithaji,
Pannalal S/o Pemaji: (for Murder of Kapura)
Conviction u/s. Sentence & In Default of
Fine payment of fine
further undergo
302 and 302/149 of Life Imprisonment Two month's
I.P.C. a/w fine of Rs.1000/- additional
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (5 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
(each of the imprisonment
accused-appellants)
148 I.P.C. Two years' R.I. a/w One Month's R.I.
fine of Rs.500/-
(each of the
accused-appellants)
2.3. Accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh:
Conviction u/s. Sentence & In Default of
Fine payment of fine
further undergo
302 and 302/149 of Life Imprisonment Two month's
I.P.C. a/w fine of Rs.1000/- additional
(for Murder of Hiralal) imprisonment
302 and 302/149 of Life Imprisonment Two month's
I.P.C. a/w fine of Rs.1000/- additional
(for Murder of Kapura) imprisonment
148 I.P.C. Two years' R.I. a/w One Month's R.I.
fine of Rs.500/-
3. At the outset, it has been brought to the notice of this Court
by the learned Public Prosecutor, through production of a report
dated 29.07.2025 submitted by the Station House Officer, Police
Station Sadari, District Pali, that the accused-appellants, namely,
Bhopal Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o Sher Singh,
Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Bhopal
Singh, and Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, have expired during
the pendency of these appeals. Accordingly, the present appeals,
qua the aforesaid deceased appellants, stand abated. The said
report is taken on record. Thus, the appeals now survive only qua
accused-appellants Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Madan Singh
S/o Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Gena Ram S/o
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (6 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
Pithaji, Pannalal S/o Pemaji, and Inder Singh S/o Bhopal Singh,
and the present adjudication is confined to them.
3.1. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the
year 1980 and the present appeals have been pending since the
years 1988 and 2005, respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court, are that a
written report (Ex.P.3) was submitted by the complainant,
Raghunath Singh (P.W.8), on 22.11.1980, regarding an incident
alleged to have occurred on the same day. In the said report, it
was stated that there existed a long-standing enmity between his
family on the one hand and Prabhu Singh and Bhopal Singh, along
with their family members and companions, on the other. It was
further alleged that, owing to this rivalry, Prabhu Singh and
Bhopal Singh, along with their associates, had previously
attempted to murder his brothers Hiralal and Sohan Singh, and
that criminal cases in relation thereto were already pending before
the competent Courts.
4.1. It was further narrated in the report that on 22.11.1980,
while the complainant was returning from his agricultural field at
Rajpura to Sevtalab on a tractor around 5:00-5:15 p.m. along
with Nar Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, he met Jai Singh S/o Hiralal on
the way, just ahead of Sadari. Jai Singh informed him that about
half an hour/three-quarters of an hour earlier, his father Hiralal
had been attacked near the nadi (water reservoir) of village
Sevtalab by Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o
Guman Singh, Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Narpat Singh S/o
Prabhu Singh, Madan Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (7 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
Bhopal Singh, Inder Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o
Bhopal Singh, and Bhopal Singh S/o Sher Singh. It was alleged
that the aforesaid accused persons, armed with lathis, dhariyas,
kulhadis and bhalas, had inflicted injuries upon Hiralal with the
intention to kill him.
4.2. It was further stated by Jai Singh that he, along with
Jogendra Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, had witnessed the said incident.
After assaulting Hiralal, the accused-appellants proceeded towards
the temple of Shri Ramdevji. Since the accused were armed with
deadly weapons and were larger in number, Jai Singh and
Jogendra Singh did not dare to intervene. However, upon their
shouts for help, Prithviraj also arrived at the place of occurrence.
Thereafter, Jai Singh, Jogendra Singh, and Prithviraj lifted the
injured Hiralal from the nadi and brought him to his house. It was
further alleged that thereafter, Prithviraj went to arrange for a
vehicle in order to take Hiralal to the hospital, while Jai Singh
proceeded towards the police station to lodge a report of the
incident. On the way, Jai Singh met the complainant and narrated
the entire incident. The complainant, accompanied by Jai Singh,
immediately went to Sevtalab, where they found Hiralal lying
injured in his house. His hands were fractured, and blood was
oozing from various parts of his body.
4.3. The report further alleged that upon inquiry by the
complainant, Hiralal himself disclosed that while he was returning
from the hotel towards the chakki, he was waylaid by Bhopal
Singh, Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (8 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
Singh, Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Madan Singh S/o Bhopal
Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Inder Singh S/o Bhopal
Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, and Bhopal Singh S/o
Sher Singh. He stated that the aforesaid accused persons, armed
with lathis, dhariyas, kulhadis and bhalas, had inflicted multiple
blows upon him. Hiralal further told the complainant that he was
in severe pain and requested that he be taken to the hospital
immediately. The complainant thereafter took his brother Hiralal to
the hospital in a car belonging to one Jevarchand, which had been
arranged by Prithviraj. However, upon reaching the hospital,
Hiralal succumbed to his injuries after some time. It was further
informed to the complainant that, subsequent to the assault on
Hiralal, the accused-appellants had also beaten Kapura S/o Pemaji
Kumhar. The said assault was witnessed by Kapura's wife and
daughter, Bhikhi. Kapura too was brought to the hospital in the
same car, but he also succumbed to his injuries in the Hospital.
4.4. On the basis of the aforementioned report, the police
registered a case against the accused persons under Sections 147,
148, 149, 302 IPC and started investigation. After conclusion of
investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under the relevant
sections; owing to the nature of crime involved, the matter was
committed for Sessions Trial, from where the case was transferred
to the learned Trial Court for the necessary Trial.
4.5. During the course of trial, the statements of 29 witnesses
(P.W. 1 to P.W. 29) were recorded, documents (Ex.P.1 to 92) were
exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and in defence, the accused
produced 16 witnesses (D.W. 1 to D.W. 16) and exhibited
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (9 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
documents.(Ex.D.1 to Ex.D. 208); whereafter, the accused-
appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they
pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal case in
question.
4.6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court,
convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as above, vide
the impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence
dated 19.05.1988 & 19.02.2005, respectively; against which, the
present appeals have been preferred by the accused-appellants.
5. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajiv
Bishnoi, and Mr. Sanjay Mathur, Mr. Mridul Jain, Mr. L.D. Khatri,
Mr.Mahesh Thanvi, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants,
submitted that the genesis of the prosecution case is shrouded in
serious doubts, as the earliest information recorded by the police
did not name most of the accused-appellants.
5.1. It was contended that even prior to the filing of the written
report (Ex.P.3) by complainant Raghunath Singh, the incident had
already been reported by Prithviraj (P.W.6), who claimed himself
to be an eyewitness. Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.6
Prithviraj had gone to arrange transport to carry the injured Hiralal
to the hospital, and thereafter, he proceeded to the Police Outpost
Lakara, where he lodged the first information regarding the
occurrence.
5.2. The said information was duly entered in the Daily Diary
(Rojnamcha Ex.D.19). In this earliest version, P.W.6 Prithviraj
merely stated that "Prabhu Singh and Bhopal Singh and their
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (10 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
associates" had assaulted Hiralal and Kapura. No other accused-
appellant was named therein.
5.3. Furthermore, it was urged that in Ex.D.21, being another
statement recorded subsequent to Ex.D.19, P.W.6 Prithviraj again
did not specify the names of any other accused, except Prabhu
Singh and Bhopal Singh. Even in doing so, the parentage of either
of the two individuals named as "Bhopal Singh" was not
mentioned, despite the fact that among the array of accused
persons, there are two individuals bearing the same name.
5.4. Thus, it was submitted that the earliest version of the
incident, as given spontaneously by a claimed eyewitness, not
only failed to name most of the present appellants, but also
suffered from grave ambiguity in identifying even those two
individuals who were named. According to the appellants, this
omission in the earliest report casts a serious shadow of doubt on
the subsequent written report (Ex.P.3) and the later
embellishments therein, which appear to have been an
afterthought and the result of deliberation and consultation.
5.5. It was further submitted that the subsequent written report
(Ex.P.3), which has been treated as the FIR, was lodged only at
about 10:30 p.m. at Police Station Sadari. By that time, as is
borne out from the record, both the Deputy Superintendent of
Police and the Station House Officer of Police Station Sadari were
already present at the hospital where the injured had been
brought and where, in fact, Hiralal had succumbed to his injuries.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (11 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
5.6. It was emphasized that not only the police officials but also
all the three alleged eyewitnesses, namely, Jai Singh, Jogendra
Singh, and Prithviraj (P.W.6), as well as the complainant
Raghunath Singh (P.W.8) himself, were admittedly present at the
hospital well before 10:30 p.m. In such circumstances, the
appellants contended, the lodging of a detailed report at the police
station at a belated hour raises grave suspicion.
5.7. Thus, it was submitted that the intervening period between
the occurrence and the formal registration of Ex.P.3 provided
ample opportunity for deliberation and consultation, thereby
enabling the complainant party to embellish and amplify the list of
accused persons. The sharp contrast between the earliest
information (Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.21) which named only Prabhu
Singh and Bhopal Singh and the detailed report Ex.P.3, which
contains a full roll-call of accused persons with weapons allegedly
carried by them, strongly suggests afterthought, exaggeration,
and false implication of a large number of accused due to long-
standing enmity.
5.8. It was further submitted that the delay in lodging the written
report (Ex.P.3) becomes even more significant when examined in
the light of the testimony of two police constables posted at the
Lakara Outpost, who were admittedly present in the village when
complainant Raghunath Singh reached the residence of the injured
Hiralal.
5.9. Out of the said two constables, Mag Singh (P.W.9)
categorically deposed that he was informed only that "Bhopal
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (12 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
Singh and Prabhu Singh and their associates" had assaulted
Hiralal. Significantly, the names of none of the other accused-
appellants were disclosed at that stage.
5.10. The other constable Vijay Singh (P.W.11), though present
with P.W.9, gave no account whatsoever of any disclosure
allegedly made by the injured Hiralal. Even more importantly,
P.W.9 himself admitted that he had no knowledge of any alleged
eyewitnesses to the incident.
5.11. It was, therefore, contended that this contemporaneous
version given to the police constables at the very earliest point of
time, immediately after the occurrence, undermines the
subsequent prosecution story. It clearly demonstrates that the
true assailants were not known or not disclosed at that stage, and
the subsequent naming of a large number of accused persons in
Ex.P.3 is nothing but a result of deliberation and afterthought.
5.12. It was further urged on behalf of the appellants that once
Ex.D.19, being the Rojnamcha entry based on the information
supplied by Prithviraj (P.W.6), had already been conveyed to the
police immediately after the incident, the subsequent report Ex.P.3
could not, in law, be treated as the "first information" under
Section 154 Cr.P.C.
5.13. It was also submitted that Ex.P.3, being a statement
recorded after Ex.D.19, squarely falls within the mischief of
Section 162 Cr.P.C., which prohibits the use of any statement
made to a police officer during investigation, except for the limited
purpose of contradiction. Since the substratum of the prosecution
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (13 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
case is built upon Ex.P.3, its very admissibility as an FIR is legally
untenable.
5.14. It was contended that treating Ex.P.3 as the FIR, despite the
prior existence of Ex.D.19, results in serious prejudice to the
accused-appellants, because the real contemporaneous version
has been sidelined in favour of a later embellished document
prepared after deliberation. In these circumstances, the
prosecution story becomes inherently unreliable and the conviction
based thereon cannot be sustained.
5.15. It was further contended that even the explanation offered
by Prithviraj (P.W.6) regarding his movements immediately after
the occurrence is riddled with suspicion. According to him, he went
to arrange for transport to take the injured Hiralal to the hospital.
It was argued that this explanation is wholly unconvincing in the
facts and circumstances of the case, as the complainant party
admittedly had access to multiple vehicles in the village, including
the tractor on which Raghunath Singh (complainant and P.W.8)
himself was travelling at the relevant time. In light of these
available means, Prithviraj's story that he had to specifically leave
the spot to arrange transport becomes improbable. The appellants
thus contended that the conduct of P.W.6 Prithviraj was unnatural
and inconsistent with that of a true eyewitness. His presence at
the scene, and his version of events, therefore becomes doubtful,
further eroding the reliability of the prosecution case.
5.16. It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that the
testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses is replete with
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (14 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
contradictions and marked by an unnatural account of the
incident.
5.16.1. In particular, Prithviraj (P.W.6), though projected as a
material eyewitness, admitted during cross-examination that when
the assault began, he himself did not intervene or retaliate in any
manner. He further conceded that he could not even confirm
whether Jai Singh or Jogendra Singh were present at the place of
occurrence at the relevant time, thereby directly undermining the
presence of the other two eyewitnesses relied upon by the
prosecution.
5.16.2. Moreover, while P.W.6 claimed that he had informed the
police that "Bhopal Singh, Prabhu Singh and their associates" were
the assailants of Hiralal and Kapura, he was unable to attribute
any specific injuries to any individual accused. This is borne out
from Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.21, which do not contain any details of
individual overt acts, but only a vague reference to two names
along with the ambiguous expression "and associates."
5.16.3. It was further submitted that such a vague, uncertain, and
contradictory version cannot be treated as reliable testimony of an
eyewitness, particularly when it stands in stark contrast to the
later detailed and embellished version given in Ex.P.3. The
unnatural conduct of P.W.6, coupled with his inability to affirm the
presence of the other two eyewitnesses, makes the entire ocular
account of the prosecution highly doubtful.
5.16.4. It was also contended that the testimony of Jai Singh
(P.W.7), another alleged eyewitness, is also wholly unreliable.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (15 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
Despite being projected as having been present at the scene,
P.W.7 conspicuously failed to even mention that Prithviraj (P.W.6)
was present there, thereby creating a direct contradiction between
the versions of the two witnesses. P.W.7 also admitted in his
cross-examination that his father Hiralal never disclosed to him
the names of the assailants. Learned counsel urged that such
silence on the part of a fatally injured victim, who was allegedly
conscious and speaking, is contrary to normal human conduct and
casts a serious shadow of doubt on the veracity of P.W.7's account.
5.16.5. Moreover, P.W.7 admitted that he did not inform any
villagers about the incident nor did he make any attempt to rescue
his father from the assault, despite being his son and an
immediate family member. The learned counsel emphasized that
such passivity in the face of a murderous assault on one's own
father is highly unnatural, and his conduct is inconsistent with that
of a truthful eyewitness. Taken together, these circumstances
demonstrate that the presence of P.W.7 at the scene of occurrence
is doubtful, and his testimony cannot be relied upon to sustain the
conviction of the appellants.
5.16.6. It was further submitted that Jogendra Singh (P.W.10), the
nephew of the deceased Hiralal, also failed to inspire confidence as
a truthful eyewitness. In his cross-examination, P.W.10 admitted
that he only saw the accused persons following Hiralal from a
distance of about 50 feet. Despite allegedly witnessing such a
grave situation, he did not raise any hue or cry to warn Hiralal of
the impending danger. P.W.10 further admitted that Prithviraj
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (16 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
(P.W.6) and Jai Singh (P.W.7) were present at the spot, yet none
of them attempted to intervene or make any effort to prevent the
assault. It was urged that this collective inaction is wholly
inconsistent with the natural human conduct expected of close
relatives witnessing the brutal assault on a family elder. Moreover,
P.W.10 did not summon any villagers to the place of occurrence,
nor did he assign any specific role or injury to any of the accused
persons in his testimony. The failure to attribute distinct injuries,
coupled with the broad and omnibus allegations, renders his
evidence vague and unreliable.
5.16.7 Learned counsel argued that the testimony of P.W.10, when
read with the accounts of P.W.6 and P.W.7, is riddled with
contradictions and improbabilities, thereby undermining the
prosecution's claim of there being natural and trustworthy
eyewitnesses.
5.17. The learned counsel for the appellants further placed
reliance on the testimony of Nahar Singh (P.W.25), Dy.S.P., Police
Station Sadri, who admitted in his cross-examination that none of
the police personnel from Lakhara outpost were present in the
hospital when the injured persons were brought there. He further
admitted that although one constable was present, that constable
did not disclose anything regarding the occurrence. According to
the learned counsel, this circumstance assumes importance, as it
creates doubt over the prosecution version that the police and
eyewitnesses were simultaneously present and in knowledge of
the incident at the hospital itself. P.W.25 also stated during cross-
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (17 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
examination that, so far as the death of Kapura is concerned,
complete knowledge about the incident was gathered only after
the statement of Smt. Gattu (P.W.3), wife of Kapura, was recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The appellants contended that this
admission is inconsistent with the prosecution case that the
identity of the assailants and the occurrence were clearly known
from the very beginning. It was thus argued that the deposition of
P.W.25 supports the defence case that the prosecution story, as
projected in Ex.P.3, was not the earliest and spontaneous version
of the incident, and that material facts were introduced at a later
stage.
5.18. Further, assailment is made to the reliability of the
prosecution witnesses relating to the assault on Kapura, namely,
Smt. Gattu (P.W.3), Lakma (P.W.4) and Bhiki (P.W.5). It was urged
that their testimonies suffer from material infirmities and cannot
be treated as trustworthy. It was submitted that the Test
Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused was conducted only
during the trial, after an inordinate delay of nearly two and a half
years. In the meantime, the accused persons were not kept
baparda. Owing to such delay and exposure, the evidentiary value
of the identification proceedings stands substantially diminished.
5.18.1. It was pointed out that Smt. Gattu (P.W.3) wrongly
identified Narpat Singh, Madan Singh, Yashpal Singh, Pannalal and
Gama Ram. Bhiki (P.W.5) failed to identify Pannalal and Gama
Ram, and could only identify Madan Singh, Yashpal Singh and
Narpat Singh. The defence emphasised that all these accused
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (18 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
were residents of the same village and were well known to the
witnesses, thereby rendering the identification proceedings
meaningless.
5.19. Furthermore, the record reveals that none of the said
witnesses disclosed the identity of the assailants when Prithviraj
(P.W.6) and Vijay Singh (P.W.11) arrived at their home and took
Kapura to the hospital. According to the appellants, this omission
in the earliest version creates a serious doubt about the
subsequent attribution of specific roles and names during trial.
5.20. On the basis of these infirmities, it was contended that the
ocular account furnished by P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 is not reliable,
and the conviction based upon such doubtful evidence cannot be
sustained.
5.21. The appellants also placed reliance on the testimony of Dr.
Roop Singh (P.W.1), who conducted the medical examination and
post-mortem. In his statement, P.W.1 admitted that the injuries
sustained by the deceased were not consistent with the weapons
alleged to have been used during the assault. He further clarified
that the injuries were largely superficial in nature, and no blood
was detected on the weapons recovered, except on the spear
allegedly recovered from Narpat Singh. Even in respect of the said
spear, the medical evidence did not establish that such a weapon
was actually used in the commission of the offence. On the
strength of the above, it was submitted that the medical evidence
does not corroborate the ocular version put forward by the
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (19 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
prosecution, thereby creating a material doubt in the prosecution
case.
6. Per contra, Mr. Pawan Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor with
Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on
behalf of the State, and Mr. Suresh Kumbhat with Mr. Sheetal
Kumbhat, appearing on behalf of the complainant party, opposed
the appeals and supported the impugned judgments of conviction
and orders of sentence.
6.1. It was submitted at the outset that the information under
Section 154 Cr.P.C. is required to be given to the officer in charge
of a police station, and therefore the Rojnamcha entry (Ex.D.19),
recorded at the Lakhara outpost on the basis of the information
given by Prithviraj (P.W.6), cannot be treated as the first
information report in the eye of law. A police outpost does not fall
within the definition of "police station" under Section 2(o) Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, Ex.P.3, lodged by Raghunath Singh at Police Station
Sadri, constitutes the valid and proper FIR. It was further
contended that Ex.P.3 was promptly recorded the same night, at
10:30 p.m., and the minor time gap stood satisfactorily explained
in light of the circumstances that the priority of the family
members was to arrange transport and rush the injured to the
hospital. The appellants' argument regarding delay, it was urged,
is without substance.
6.2. In respect of the alleged delay in lodging Ex.P.3, it was
contended that the same is immaterial. Raghunath Singh, being
the elder member of the family, had first to attend to the
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (20 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
immediate needs of his grievously injured brother Hiralal, which
included arranging conveyance and taking him to the hospital. The
priority of any responsible family elder in such circumstances
would naturally be to save the life of the injured rather than to
rush to the police station. Thus, the report having been lodged at
10:30 p.m., on the same night of the occurrence, cannot be said
to be delayed in a manner so as to cast any doubt on the
prosecution case.
6.3. It was further submitted that the existence of long-standing
enmity between the complainant party and the accused side has
been proved on record. The feud had persisted for nearly four
decades, and the appellants had previously attempted to assault
and even eliminate the complainant's family members. This
background of hostility supplied a strong motive for the appellants
to commit the present crime. The presence of such a deep-rooted
animosity, instead of being a ground for false implication as urged
by the defence, is in fact a significant circumstance corroborating
the prosecution case.
6.4. As regards the argument that Prithviraj (P.W.6) did not
immediately use the tractor for transporting Hiralal, it was urged
that this argument overlooks the medical condition of the injured.
The witnesses have consistently stated that Hiralal had sustained
multiple fractures and grievous bleeding injuries, and therefore his
condition was extremely fragile. Transporting him on a tractor,
which is a rough and open vehicle, could have further aggravated
his condition. Thus, the family members and witnesses, in the
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (21 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
ordinary course of prudence, preferred to arrange a proper motor
vehicle for taking him to the hospital. This explanation is natural
and fully accounts for the time taken in arranging conveyance.
6.5. The contention of the appellants that the eyewitnesses were
related to the deceased and hence "interested witnesses" was
refuted. It was urged that merely because a witness is related to
the deceased or belongs to the complainant party does not by
itself render such testimony unreliable or inadmissible. The settled
position of law is that the evidence of a related witness cannot be
discarded on that ground alone; rather, it requires careful scrutiny,
and if found credible, it can form the basis of conviction. In the
present case, the testimonies of P.W.6 Prithviraj, P.W.7 Jai Singh,
and P.W.10 Jogendra Singh are natural, consistent with the
occurrence, and inspire confidence, and thus cannot be brushed
aside merely on account of their relationship with the deceased.
6.6. It was next submitted that the incident occurred in a village
setting, in the late evening hours, where people ordinarily move
about for agricultural and domestic chores. In such a background,
the presence of the eyewitnesses at or near the place of
occurrence cannot be termed as doubtful or unnatural. On the
contrary, their presence was most natural, as they either belonged
to the same family or resided in the vicinity, and were thus in a
position to witness the assault. The criticism that their account is
improbable or fabricated does not hold merit in the rural context,
where close-knit community life and proximity to the fields and
water bodies make such presence not only possible but expected.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (22 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
6.7. As regards the medical evidence, it was submitted that the
opinion of the doctor (P.W.1 Dr. Roop Singh) does not in any
manner demolish the prosecution case. The presence or absence
of bloodstains on the recovered weapons cannot be treated as
conclusive proof either way, as such stains may get wiped off or
lost due to passage of time and handling. Similarly, the doctor's
observation that some injuries were superficial does not negate
the fact that the cumulative effect of the multiple blows caused
the death of both victims. Medical evidence is corroborative in
nature and is intended to support, not supplant, the direct
testimony of eyewitnesses. In the present case, the ocular
evidence is clear and consistent, and the medical findings are not
in contradiction but broadly in consonance with the manner of
assault alleged.
6.8. With respect to the argument regarding the Test
Identification Parade, it was submitted that the minor
discrepancies pointed out by the defence do not vitiate the
prosecution case. Smt. Gattu (P.W.3), Bhiki (P.W.5), and Lakma
(P.W.4) were consistent in their broad account of the assault on
Kapura. The fact that some witnesses failed to identify all the
accused or committed minor errors during the TIP, which was held
after a lapse of time, is not fatal to the prosecution. It is well-
settled that TIP is only a corroborative exercise and not
substantive evidence; what carries weight is the identification of
the accused by the witnesses in Court during trial, which was duly
established.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (23 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
6.9. It was further contended that the defence argument that the
accused and the witnesses belonged to the same village and
hence there was no necessity of TIP is self-defeating. On the
contrary, the familiarity of the witnesses with the accused rules
out the possibility of mistaken identity. The discrepancies in
identification, if any, only go to the margin and do not discredit
the core version that Kapura was assaulted by members of the
accused party in furtherance of the same enmity.
6.10. It was lastly urged that the testimonies of the material
witnesses, when read as a whole, are consistent, cogent, and
mutually corroborative. The core of the prosecution case, namely
that both Hiralal and Kapura were waylaid and assaulted by the
accused party owing to long-standing enmity, has remained firm
throughout. Minor contradictions or omissions, which are bound to
occur when witnesses depose after a long passage of time, do not
detract from the overall reliability of their account. The consistent
narration by P.W.6 Prithviraj, P.W.7 Jai Singh, P.W.10 Jogendra
Singh, along with the corroboration furnished by P.W.3 Gattu,
P.W.4 Lakma, and P.W.5 Bhiki regarding the assault on Kapura,
establishes the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
6.11. On the cumulative strength of the above, it was submitted
that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The motive arising from a long-standing feud,
the consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the corroboration
by medical and circumstantial evidence, and the identification of
the assailants taken together form a complete chain pointing
unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. The minor
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (24 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
discrepancies highlighted by the defence are natural in human
testimony and do not affect the substratum of the case. The
learned Trial Court, upon a proper appreciation of the evidence,
has rightly recorded the conviction and awarded sentence, which
calls for no interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
8. This Court observes that the first contention urged on behalf
of the appellants is that Ex.P.3, the written report lodged by
Raghunath Singh, is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C., since Ex.D.19
Rojnamcha entry already existed prior to it. This argument does
not persuade us. Ex.D.19, being a general Rojnamcha entry
recorded at the police outpost on the basis of preliminary
information, cannot be equated with a First Information Report
under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The settled legal position is that
information under Section 154 has to be given to the officer in
charge of the police station, and not merely to an outpost
constable. Thus, Ex.P.3, reduced into writing and duly signed,
constitutes the FIR in law.
8.1. This Court however finds that the fact remains that Ex.D.19
was the earliest contemporaneous account given by Prithviraj
(P.W.6), an alleged eyewitness, immediately after the occurrence.
In that account, only two names -- Prabhu Singh and Bhopal
Singh -- surfaced, with the vague addition "and associates." The
subsequent Ex.P.3, lodged belatedly at 10:30 p.m., contains a
detailed roll-call of accused persons with weapons, which appears
to be a product of deliberation. This Court finds that the drastic
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (25 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
improvement between Ex.D.19 and Ex.P.3 creates a grave
suspicion as to the authenticity of the latter.
9. This Court further observes that the delay in lodging Ex.P.3
has not been satisfactorily explained. The prosecution urged that
the priority of the family was to take the injured to the hospital.
However, it is admitted on record that senior police officials,
including the Dy.S.P. (P.W.25) and the S.H.O., were present at the
hospital much before 10:30 p.m., and that the complainant as well
as the alleged eyewitnesses were also present. In such
circumstances, the omission to record a detailed version
contemporaneously cannot be brushed aside. The belated lodging
of Ex.P.3 gave opportunity for deliberation and embellishment,
which undermines the spontaneity of the report.
10. This Court also observes that the earliest account furnished
to the police constable at Lakhara outpost by P.W.9 Mag Singh is
also significant. He categorically deposed that only "Prabhu Singh
and Bhopal Singh and their associates" were named. None of the
present appellants were mentioned. This contemporaneous
version corroborates the defence contention that the subsequent
array of accused in Ex.P.3 was the result of afterthought.
11. This Court further observes that the testimonies of the three
principal eyewitnesses -- P.W.6 Prithviraj, P.W.7 Jai Singh, and
P.W.10 Jogendra Singh -- are riddled with contradictions,
improbabilities, and instances of unnatural conduct. P.W.6 himself
conceded that he did not intervene during the assault and could
not confirm whether P.W.7 or P.W.10 were present at the spot.
P.W.7 admitted that his father never disclosed the names of the
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (26 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
assailants to him, which is wholly unnatural if Hiralal was
conscious. P.W.10 admitted that he only saw the accused from a
distance of 50 feet and did not raise alarm or summon help. This
Court finds that the collective passivity of close relatives in the
face of a murderous assault is inconsistent with natural human
conduct, rendering their presence doubtful.
12. This Court also observes that the evidence relating to the
assault on Kapura, as deposed by P.W.3 Gattu, P.W.4 Lakma, and
P.W.5 Bhiki, suffers from material infirmities. None of them
disclosed the names of the assailants when the injured was taken
to the hospital. Their identification of the accused was belated and
marred by errors. The Test Identification Parade, held after two
and a half years, was wholly unreliable since the accused were not
kept baparda and were admittedly known to the witnesses as co-
villagers. This Court finds that such defective identification cannot
be safely relied upon.
13. This Court further observes that the prosecution placed
heavy reliance on motive arising from longstanding enmity. While
the existence of hostility between the parties is established, such
enmity cuts both ways. It may furnish a motive for the accused to
attack, but it equally provides a strong ground for false implication
of a large number of adversaries. In the present case, the manner
in which the prosecution story expanded from two named
individuals in Ex.D.19 to a full roster of accused in Ex.P.3, coupled
with the contradictions in testimony, suggests that enmity has, in
fact, resulted in false implication.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (27 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
14. This Court also observes that the explanation advanced by
the prosecution for not using the tractor to transport the injured
Hiralal is also unconvincing. In rural settings, a tractor is the most
readily available means of transport. The story that it was
abandoned in favour of a distant car appears artificial, particularly
when Hiralal's condition was precarious. This improbability casts
further doubt on the version of P.W.6 regarding his movements
after the incident.
15. This Court further observes that the conduct of P.W.7 Jai
Singh is highly unnatural. Despite claiming to have seen his father
grievously assaulted, he neither raised alarm to alert villagers nor
attempted to secure immediate assistance. His admission that his
father did not disclose the names of the assailants further
contradicts the prosecution version and undermines his reliability.
16. This Court also observes that P.W.10 Jogendra Singh, being
the nephew of the deceased, admitted to seeing the accused
following Hiralal from a close distance, yet neither cautioned him
nor sought help from others in the village. His passive conduct,
inconsistent with normal human behaviour, raises serious doubts
about his presence at the scene of occurrence.
17. This Court further observes that P.W.9 Mag Singh, a
constable from Lakara outpost, deposed that he only heard the
names of Bhopal Singh and Prabhu Singh, without mention of the
other accused. The other constable on duty gave no account of
any disclosure. This omission from independent police witnesses
at the earliest point indicates that the identities of most of the
accused were not known at the time of occurrence.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (28 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
18. This Court also observes that the cumulative effect of the
infirmities in the prosecution case -- namely, the doubtful
status of Ex.P.3 as the FIR, the unexplained delay, the
contradictions and unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses, the
unreliable identification evidence, and the lack of
corroboration from medical findings -- leads to the irresistible
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case
beyond reasonable doubt.
19. It is a settled proposition of law that where the prosecution
case suffers from material contradictions, inconsistencies and
absence of corroboration, the benefit of doubt must enure to the
accused. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants
were responsible for causing the fatal injury to the deceased(s).
20. This Court further observes that when a judgment of
conviction is challenged before the Appellate Court, it becomes
imperative to undertake a proper and independent appreciation of
the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court. The power of the
Appellate Court in this regard is statutorily enshrined under
Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which
provides as follows:
"386. Powers of the Appellate Court.--
(b) in an appeal from a conviction--
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge
the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of
competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or
committed for trial, or
(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (29 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so
as to enhance the same."
21. This Court also observes that as provided under Section
386(b)(i) Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has the power to reverse the
findings of the conviction, so as to acquit the accused. At this
juncture, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the relevant
portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna v. State of Gujarat,
(2013) 15 SCC 263, as hereunder:-
"9. At this juncture, we are obliged to state that though it may
be difficult to state that the judgment suffers from sans
reasons, yet it is not at all difficult to say that the reasons
ascribed are really apology for reasons. If we allow ourselves
to say so, one may ascribe certain reasons which seem to be
reasons but the litmus test is to give seemly and condign
reasons either to sustain or overturn the judgment. The
filament of reasoning must logically flow from requisite
analysis, but, unfortunately, the said exercise has not been
carried out. In this context, we may refer with profit to the
decision in Padam Singh v. State of U.P [(2000) 1 SCC 621:
2000 SCC (Cri) 285], wherein a two-Judge Bench, while
dealing with the duty of the appellate court, has expressed
thus: (SCC p. 625, para 2)
"2. ... It is the duty of an appellate court to look into
the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an
independent conclusion as to whether the said
evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can
be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be
said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on
the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to
be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing
inference from proved and admitted facts. It must be
remembered that the appellate court, like the trial
court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that the
prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of
the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable
doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the
accused starts, continues right through until he is held
guilty by the final Court of Appeal and that
presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (30 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court."
(emphasis supplied)
10. In Rama v. State of Rajasthan[(2002) 4 SCC 571 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 829], the Court has stated about the duty of the appellate
court in the following terms: (SCC p. 572, para 4)
"4. ... It is well settled that in a criminal appeal, a duty is
enjoined upon the appellate court to reappraise the
evidence itself and it cannot proceed to dispose of the
appeal upon appraisal of evidence by the trial court alone
especially when the appeal has been already admitted and
placed for final hearing. Upholding such a procedure would
amount to negation of valuable right of appeal of an
accused, which cannot be permitted under law."
11. In Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek v. State of Gujarat [(2012) 11
SCC 312: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 636], relying on the
pronouncements in Padam Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 621 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 285] and Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 720:
1996 SCC (Cri) 848], this Court has reiterated the principle
pertaining to the duty of the appellate court.
12. Recently, a three-Judge Bench in Majjal v. State of Haryana
[(2013) 6 SCC 798] has ruled thus: (SCC p. 800, para 7)
"7. It was necessary for the High Court to consider
whether the trial court's assessment of the evidence and
its opinion that the appellant must be convicted deserve
to be confirmed. This exercise is necessary because the
personal liberty of an accused is curtailed because of the
conviction.
The High Court must state its reasons why it is accepting
the evidence on record. The High Court's concurrence with
the trial court's view would be acceptable only if it is
supported by reasons. In such appeals it is a court of first
appeal. Reasons cannot be cryptic. By this, we do not
mean that the High Court is expected to write an unduly
long treatise. The judgment may be short but must reflect
proper application of mind to vital evidence and important
submissions which go to the root of the matter."
22. This Court also observes that looking into the overall factual
matrix and the circumstances of the case as well as the evidence
and the precedent law, as placed before us, it is a fit case to
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (31 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
exercise the power conferred under Section 386(b) Cr.P.C., which
pertains to the reversal of a finding from conviction to acquittal.
23. Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed, and the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
19.05.1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, in
Sessions Case No. 58/1984 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Narpat Singh
& Ors.) and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 19.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali, in Sessions Case No. 70/1999
(State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Singh), whereby the accused-
appellants have been convicted and sentenced are quashed and
set aside. To reiterate, since the appeals having already stood
abated qua the deceased appellants Bhopal Singh S/o Guman
Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o Sher Singh, Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu
Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, and Prabhu Singh S/o
Guman Singh, the present adjudication is confined only to the
surviving appellants. Consequently, the surviving accused-
appellants, namely, Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Madan Singh
S/o Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Gena Ram S/o
Pithaji, Pannalal S/o Pemaji, and Inder Singh S/o Bhopal Singh,
are acquitted of all the charges against them. As they are already
on bail, they need not surrender; their bail bonds stand
discharged.
24. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S., each of the surviving accused-appellants are
hereby directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (32 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond each in the like amount before the
learned Trial court which shall be effective for a period of six
months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave
Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof,
the said accused-appellants shall appear before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, as and when called upon to do so.
25. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record was
already returned to learned Trial Court.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J. (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
