Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramesh Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 September, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:41878-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 312/2024
Ramesh Chandra S/o Shri Shantilal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Godhapada Vanala, P.s. Sadar, District Banswara.
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Addl.GA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, J
18/09/2025
1. The instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. (415 BNSS)
has been preferred by the appellant Ramesh Chandra S/o Shri
Shantilal against the judgment dated 14.11.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case
No.150/2019, arising out of FIR No.300/2019, P.S. Sadar, District
Bhanswara, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for
the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100,000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, further to undergo one year rigorous
imprisonment.
2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are that
on 24.07.2019 at about 12:45 PM, the complainant - Jaalma son
of Mavji Ninama, resident of Ajabaji Ka Gada, Godapada Vanala,
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 04:06:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41878-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLAD-312/2024]
submitted a written complaint at Sadar Police Station, Banswara.
In the written complaint, it was stated that before 11 years, his
daughter - Suka had been married to Ramesh chandra son of
Shantilal Goda, resident of Godapada Vanala according to their
customs. From this wedlock, two sons were born, the elder aged 8
years and the younger aged 7 years. On 21.07.2019, his son-in-
law Ramesh chandra and daughter Suka had visited his house and
returned the next day. On 24.07.2019 at about 09:30 AM, the
ward panch informed him that his daughter Suka had been
murdered and that her husband Ramesh was missing from home.
The complainant, along with his family members, immediately
went to the house of his daughter at village Godapada, where they
saw the dead body of Suka lying inside the house in a pool of
blood with grievous injuries on her face. In the said complaint, it
was mentioned that his son-in-law Ramesh used to quarrel with
Suka and often raised questions upon her character. He strongly
suspected that Ramesh son of Shantilal, resident of Godapada
Vanala had murdered his daughter.
3. On the basis of the above written report, a formal FIR
No.300/2019 (Exhibit P.15) was registered at Police Station
Sadar , Banswara against the accused for the offences under
Sections 302, IPC.
4. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet
against the accused-appellant for the offences under section 302,
IPC.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 04:06:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41878-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLAD-312/2024]
5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the
charges under Sections 302 IPC to the accused-appellant, who
denied the charge and sought trial.
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 20
witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced
documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-36.
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 produced documentary evidence as Exhibits D-
01 & D-2.
8. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced
on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid vide judgment dated
14.11.2024. Hence the present appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that
all the material prosecution witnesses including PW-11 Kamlesh
son of the deceased have not supported the prosecution story
and, therefore, they were declared hostile. Learned counsel
further submits that it has come in the statement of PW-7
Shantilal that on the night preceding the incident, the appellant
slept at the house of his grandfather Hirji and, therefore, was not
present at his own house where Suki was murdered.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 04:06:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41878-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLAD-312/2024]
10. Learned counsel further submits that as per the report of the
Forensic Science Laboratory, the alleged weapon of offence (Lohe
Ki Kas) did not contain any bloodstains. He further submits that
the appellant went to the Police Station to lodge a report against
Sohan Lal, but instead, the police recorded his alleged
confessional statement and proceeded against the appellant,
charging him with the offence in question. Learned counsel also
submits that the father, uncle, and brother of the deceased, i.e.,
PW-1 Jaalma, PW-2 Harish, PW-3 Heeralal, and PW-8 Pawan, have
stated in their evidence that the appellant along with his wife had
visited their places and there were no signs of marital discord
between them. He submits that the appellant had been married to
the deceased for eleven years and from their wedlock, they had
two children, and there was no reason for the appellant to be
unhappy in their matrimonial life. He, therefore, prays that the
impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court may be quashed
and set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the
charges levelled against him.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor, while supporting the impugned
judgment, has opposed the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the appellant.
12. We have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar
and carefully examined the entire record of the learned Trial
Court, including the judgment dated 14.11.2024.
13. It is true that PW-11 Kamlesh and other villagers who
appeared as prosecution witnesses before the learned Trial Court
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 04:06:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41878-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLAD-312/2024]
did not support the prosecution story and were, therefore,
declared hostile. It has also come on record that PW-1 Jaalma,
PW-2 Harish, and PW-3 Heeralal, the father, uncle, and brother of
the deceased have stated that there was no marital discord
between the appellant and the deceased Suki but that does not
mean that appellant was not disturbed by the conduct of his wife
who was having extra marital affair. In the statement of PW-7
Shantilal, father of the appellant, it has come on record that the
deceased was having an illicit relationship with Sohan Lal and, on
account of a compromise (Bhanjgara), the matter was settled. In
the statement of PW-9 Sohan Lal, he admitted that pursuant to
such compromise, he had to pay Rs.60,000/- to Ramesh, the
present appellant. In cross-examination, he further stated that he
was acquainted with Suki and used to visit her house. PW-11
Kamlesh, who is the son of the appellant and the deceased, was
declared hostile and has stated that Sohan Lal murdered his
mother. In Rojnamcha Ex.P-16, it has been recorded that the
appellant came to the Police Station and informed that his wife
Suki was having an illicit relationship with a person of the village
and that at about 2:30 a.m., he assaulted her, resulting into her
death. On this report, the matter was conveyed to the Circle
Inspector for registration of FIR. Ex.P-36 is the Postmortem
Report, wherein the cause of death is recorded as coma due to
maxillofacial and head injury. Multiple fractures in the head were
also reported therein. Ex.P-35 is the Forensic Science Laboratory
Report. Ex.P-19 is the Recovery Memo of the weapon of offence,
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 04:06:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41878-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLAD-312/2024]
and Ex.P-18 is the information recorded under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act leading to the recovery of the weapon.
14. The statements of PW-11 Kamlesh, PW-7 Shantilal, and PW-
9 Sohan Lal indicate that the deceased Suki was having an illicit
relationship with Sohan Lal and the appellant was unhappy about
the same. It has also come on record that a settlement was
arrived at (Bhanjgara), wherein, PW-9 Sohan Lal had to pay
Rs.60,000/- to the appellant Ramesh. A close reading of the
testimony shows that the deceased Suki was having an illicit
relationship with PW-9 Sohan Lal and the fact that the appellant
visited the in-law's house along with his wife on the previous day
of the incident, cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that
the relationship between husband and wife was good and the
appellant has not inflicted the fatal injuries. There is no reason to
disbelieve the testimony of PW-15 Kailash Chandra, who stated
that on 24.07.2019, while he was posted as ASI at Police Station
Bhungra, the appellant Ramesh Chandra came to him and
confessed that his wife Suki was having an illicit relationship with
a villager, and that at about 2:30 a.m., he inflicted injuries with a
Kasi, resulting into her death. The confession made by the
appellant stands corroborated by the recovery of the weapon of
offence as per Ex.P-18 and Ex.P-19. Furthermore, the postmortem
report confirms that the injuries found on the deceased could have
been caused by the Kasi recovered at the instance of the
appellant.
15. We also note that even in his statement recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant did not make any reference to
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 04:06:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41878-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLAD-312/2024]
PW-9 Sohan Lal being the actual culprit, nor did he suggest that
since Sohan Lal was having an illicit relationship with his wife, he
might have murdered her. His only stand was that he is innocent
and has been falsely implicated.
16. On a comprehensive reading of the evidence and material
available on record, we are satisfied that the prosecution has
proved the allegations against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. The learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant
by judgment dated 14.11.2024.
17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is
hereby dismissed.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
67-Kartik Dave, LR /SanjayS/-
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 04:06:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
