Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rupa Ram And Anr vs State on 18 September, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:41478-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 601/2014
1. Rupa Ram S/o Moti Ji.
2. Maga Ram s/o Moti Ji.
By caste Rebari, residents of Chuli, P.S. Palri M. District Sirohi.
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur.)
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Rathore
Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore
Mr. Chain Singh Rathore
Mr. Shreekant Verma
Mr. Naresh Singh for
Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
18/09/2025 (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur)
1. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment
dated 19.06.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as
the learned trial court for short) in Sessions Case No.
03/2010 - State of Rajasthan v. Rupa Ram & Ors., whereby
the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced for the
following offences:
Under Section 147 IPC - One year's simple
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo two
months' simple imprisonment.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:03:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41478-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLA-601/2014]
Under Section 452 IPC - Two years' simple
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default
of payment of fine, to further undergo two months'
simple imprisonment.
Under Section 323/149 IPC - Six months'
simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo one
month's simple imprisonment.
Under Section 307/149 IPC - Five years'
simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo
three months' simple imprisonment.
Under Section 302/149 IPC - Life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo six
months' simple imprisonment.
Under Section 363/149 IPC - Three years'
simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
three months' simple imprisonment.
Under Section 368/149 IPC - Three years'
simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
three months' simple imprisonment
2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the instant appeal are
that on the basis of parcha bayan (Ex.P/52) of Smt. Teejo
W/o Jivaji Jeevan, recorded by Shri Heera Ram, S.I., P.S.
Pindwara at Government Hospital, Pindwara on 17.09.2009,
an FIR No.245/2009 was registered for offences punishable
under Sections 143, 307, 452, 323, 363 and 366/149 IPC.
3. As per the parcha bayan, Smt. Teejo was married to
accused Rupa Ram (appellant no.1) about 15 years earlier
and out of their wedlock two children, namely Peera (aged 11
years) and Kaniya (aged 9 years), were born. After residing
with her husband for about 9-10 years, she was subjected to
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:03:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41478-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLA-601/2014]
cruelty, whereafter she returned to her parental house at
Nandiya and subsequently obtained divorce from Rupa Ram
(appellant no.1). Thereafter, she entered into a Nata
marriage with Jeeva Ram S/o Bhuta Ji, R/o Batakara, and out
of this wedlock a daughter, Dimple (aged 2 years), was born.
On account of the divorce, accused Rupa Ram (appellant
no.1) was bearing enmity with her.
4. On the intervening night of 16.09.2009, at about 12.30-
1.00 a.m., while Smt. Teejo was sleeping in her house at
Nandiya along with her children, Peera, Kaniya and Dimple,
her father Devaji and mother Rabi were also sleeping there.
At that time, accused Rupa Ram (appellant no.1),
accompanied by 3-4 unknown persons, entered the house
and started beating her with lathis. When her parents
intervened, the accused assaulted them also. As a result,
Smt. Teejo, her father and mother became unconscious, and
in the meantime, the accused persons abducted her
daughters Kaniya and Dimple in a white car. On hearing hue
and cry, Natharam reached the spot, but the accused fled
away. In the incident, Smt. Teejo sustained injuries on her
left leg and back, and her parents also received multiple
injuries. During treatment, both Rabi and Devaji succumbed
to the injuries and, accordingly, offence under Section 302
IPC was added.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:03:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41478-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLA-601/2014]
5. On the basis of the aforesaid parcha bayan, a formal FIR
No.245/2009 was registered at Police Station Pindwara
against the accused for offences punishable under Sections
143, 307, 452, 323, 363 and 366/149 IPC.
6. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-
sheet against accused Rupa Ram (appellant no.1) for offences
punishable under Sections 147, 302, 452, 323, 363, 368 and
307 IPC; against co-accused Maga Ram (appellant no.2),
Jitendra, Jaswant, Deepak, Vikram and Lalit Raj for offences
under Sections 147, 302, 452, 307, 323, 363/149 IPC; and
against co-accused Chhoga Ram, Narain Lal and Ashok Kumar
for offences under Sections 147, 302, 452, 307, 323, 363 and
120-B/149 IPC.
7. The learned trial Court framed, read over and explained
the charges against accused Rupa Ram (appellant no.1) for
offences punishable under Sections 452, 147, 323/149, 302,
307, 363 and 368 IPC; against accused Chhoga Ram, Ashok
Kumar and Narain for offences punishable under Sections
452, 147, 323/149, 302/149, 307/149, 363/149 and 120-B
IPC; and against accused Maga Ram (appellant no.2),
Jitendra Kumar, Jaswant, Deepak, Vikram and Lalit Raj for
offences punishable under Sections 452, 147, 323/149,
302/149, 307/149 and 363/149 IPC. The accused denied the
charges and claimed to be tried.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:03:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41478-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLA-601/2014]
8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 28
witnesses and exhibited 110 documents, while in defence,
four documents were exhibited.
9. The statement of the accused-appellants was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all incriminating circumstances
put to them, stating that the prosecution witnesses had deposed
falsely, that the evidence was fabricated, and that they were
innocent. The accused-appellants did not lead any defence
evidence, and the defence evidence was accordingly closed.
10. Thereafter, the learned trial court after full-fledged trial vide
judgment of conviction and sentence convicted the accused
appellants as stated above, hence, the present appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in so far as
the accused appellant No.1 Rupa Ram is concerned, he after
serving his sentence as ordered by Additional Sessions Judge, Abu
Road, District Sirohi on 19.06.2014, has completed his custody
period and therefore, he has been released from prison.
12. Though learned counsel for the appellant-accused brought
the fact on record that the accused Rupa Ram has completed his
custody period and has released from prison, but a persual of the
statements of all three eye witnesses i.e. Teejo Devi (PW-11),
Kanya (PW-14) and Peera Ram (PW-15), it is clear that they have
consistently and unequivocally identified accused Ruparam. They
have categorically stated in their statements that they witnessed
the accused Ruparam inflicting injuries upon the deceased. Their
statements in this regard are mutually corroborative and free from
any material contradictions. All the three witnesses are in familial
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:03:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41478-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLA-601/2014]
relationship with the accused Ruparam, so there can be no doubt
as to his correct identification. The evidence of these witnesses is
cogent, and reliable. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve
their testimony. Accordingly, the prosecution has successfully
established that the accused Ruparam was the assailant who
inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased beyond reasonable
doubt.
13. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by
the learned trial court in the case of appellant no.1- Rupa
Ram is upheld for the reasons mentioned in above para and
the appeal filed by the appellant no.1 Rupa Ram is hereby
dismissed.
14. As far as, the case of Maga Ram (appellant No.2) is
concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there
are material contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses
PW-11 Teejo Devi, PW-14 Kaniya and PW-15 Peera Ram @ Pura
Ram. He further submits that on the basis of Parcha Bayan of PW-
11 Teejo Devi, the FIR was registered. He further submits that in
the FIR/Parcha Bayan, name of the present appellant - Maga Ram
has not been reflected despite that fact that he is brother-in-law
of Smt. Teejo Devi. He further submits that it is beyond
imagination that Teejo Devi could fail to recognize her own
brother-in-law. He further submits that she has made
improvements in her statements before the police recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D1) and, thereafter, she has made further
improvement in her deposition before the trial court.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:03:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41478-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLA-601/2014]
15. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that even
in the statement of Kanya and Peera Ram recorded in defence of
appellant Maga Ram as (Ex.D/2 and D/3), the name of present
appellant - Maga Ram has not been reflected. He further submits
that the statements recorded before trial court are improved
versions of statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He
further submits that the present appellant Magha Ram has been
falsely implicated in the present case after having tutored by the
interested persons to give their testimony.
16. Learned counsel further submits that in such circumstances,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that an accused cannot be
convicted for murder on the basis of improvements made by the
witnesses during trial. He, therefore, relied upon the judgments
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dhanna Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1996 CRI. L. J.3516
and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR 2011 SC (CRI.) 69.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even as per
the statement of PW-4, Dr. C. Ram, the injuries sustained by the
deceased Smt. Rabi and Devaji were on non-vital parts of the
body and the cause of death was not attributable to the injuries
sustained by them. He further submits that the testimony of PW-4
Dr. C. Ram stands corroborated by the post-mortem report and,
therefore, there is no reason to discard the testimony of PW-4 Dr.
C. Ram in the present case. He further submits that there is no
concrete evidence on record which shows that any particular fatal
injury has been caused by the present appellant.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:03:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41478-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLA-601/2014]
18. In view of the submissions made, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the learned trial court has committed an
error while convicting the appellant Maga Ram vide judgment
dated 19.06.2014 and, therefore, prays the appeal filed by Maga
Ram may be allowed and the appellant Magha Ram may be
acquitted from the charges leveled against him in this case.
19. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant and has supported
the findings recorded by the learned trial court.
20. We have scanned the material available on record including
the impugned judgment dated 19.6.2014.
21. A close reading of Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/52) submitted by
Smt. Teejo Devi shows that the name of appellant Magha Ram has
not been written despite the fact that Magha Ram is the brother-
in-law of Smt. Teejo Devi, but in the statements recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. she has named the present appellant Magha
Ram alongwith appellant Rupa Ram. Thereafter, in her testimony
recorded before the learned trial court, she has named the present
appellants Magha Ram and Rupa Ram. There is an improvement
in the statements of PW-11 Teejo Devi, who has introduced the
name of Magha Ram subsequently despite the fact that he was
brother-in-law of Smt. Teejo Devi. It is hard to believe that if she
was present in the house alongwith Rupa Ram and Magha Ram at
the time of incident, why she has not named him in the Parcha
Bayan (Ex.P/52). Further, there is an improvement in the
statement of PW-14 Kaniya and PW-15 Peera Ram @ Pura Ram as
in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., they
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:03:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41478-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLA-601/2014]
have not named Magha Ram. Therefore, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the involvement of appellant Magha Ram in
the present case is nothing but an over-implication and, therefore,
in these circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony
of PW-11 Smt. Teejo Devi, PW-14 Kaniya and PW-15 Peera Ram @
Pura Ram as far as the case of the appellant Magha Ram is
concerned.
22. We further note that the injuries suffered by Smt. Teejo Devi,
Devaji and Rabi are on non-vital parts and, therefore, it appears
that there was no intention to cause fatal injuries in the incident.
This Court feels that appellant Rupa Ram's kids namely Kaniya and
Peera Ram were staying with Smt. Teejo Devi and he probably had
come to take the custody of his kids in which the scuffle took
place and Devaji and Rabi sustained certain injuries on their non-
vital parts and, thereafter, they passed away while they were
taken to hospital and as per the statement of PW-4 C. Ram, the
cause of death were not injuries sustained in the incident.
23. As per the prosecution witnesses no specific injury of fatal in
nature has been attributed to appellant Magha Ram and as per the
post mortem report, since the cause of death is not the injuries
sustained in the incident, therefore, in view of the detailed
discussion made above, a reasonable doubt is created in the
prosecution story as far as the case of appellant Magha Ram is
concerned.
24. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it will not
be safe to convict the appellant Magha Ram for the offences
alleged against him in the present case.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:03:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41478-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLA-601/2014]
25. Hence, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant No.2
Magha Ram is allowed. The judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 19.6.2014 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Sessions Case
No.3/2010 qua the accused appellant Magha Ram is quashed
and set aside. The accused-appellant No.2 Magha Ram is
already on bail and therefore, he need not to surrender.
26. Before parting with it is clarified that the conviction and
sentence passed by the learned trial court in the case of appellant
no.1- Rupa Ram has already upheld in para no.13 of this
judgment.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
42-Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal/Payal/-
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:03:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
