Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Motilal on 24 September, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR



                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 131/1993

State of Rajasthan
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                        Versus


Motilal son of Khetmal Ji, b/c Khatri, resident of Village Sayla,
P.S. Sayla, District Jalore.
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
                                   Mr. S.P. Sharma with
                                   Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri

For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                   assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana
                                   Mr. Kaushal Sharma
                                   Mr. G.S. Rajpurohit




     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Judgment

RESERVED ON :: 07.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :: 24.09.2025

(Per Hon'ble Sandeep Taneja, J.)

1. By way of instant criminal appeal, appellant-State has

challenged the validity and legality of the judgment dated

16.09.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore (for

short 'the learned Trial Court') in Sessions Case No.60/1991,

whereby accused-respondent Motilal has been acquitted for the

offences under Sections 302, 307 and 304-B IPC.

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (2 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.08.1991, accused-

respondent after giving beating to his wife Pushpa and sons with

iron handle of hand pump and considering them as dead, reached

at Police Station Sayla and gave information of commission of

offence to SHO Ram Lal (PW-11). The Memorandum of Statement

(Ex.P/22), reads as under :

c;ku Jh eksrhyky s/o Jh [ksrkjke] dkSe [k=h] mez 30 lky] is"kk pDdh pykuk] lk- lenM+h eq- la- u- 61] rkjh[k 18-08-91 u/s 302 IPC, P.S. lk;ykß eq- rk- 18@08@91 us nfj;k¶r ij tkfgj fd;k fd esjh "kknh iq'ik d/o dUgS;kyky dkSe [k=h lk- Qyksnh ds lkFk djhc 5 lky iwoZ gqbZ Fkh "kknh ds ckn eSa esjh vkSjr dks lkFk gh j[krk Fkk "kknh ls djhc ,d ekg igys eSaus esjs firk }kjk cuk;s gq;s edku esa pDdh vkVk ihlus dh yxokbZ vkSj dke "kq: fd;k "kknh ds 2 ekg ckn esjh vkSjr iq'ik dks eSa lenM+h lkFk yk;k Fkk tgka ckn lkFk gh jgrh Fkh esjs nks yM+ds gSa cM+k fiUVw mez djhc 3½ lky dk gS o mlls NksVk ujsUnz mez djhc 7 ekg dk gS esjh vkSjr v{kj esjk dguk ugha ekurh Fkh gekjs ?kj dks fn;s gq;s tsoj Hkh esjh iRuh us vius firk ds ?kj Mky fn;s vc vr% tqykbZ esa esjs NksVs lkys xksfoUn dh "kknh gksus ls cM+k lkyk uUnfd"kksj ysus vk;k rc eSaus esjh iRuh o cPpksa dks Qyksnh Hkst fn;s eSa ihNs "kknh ij x;k Fkk tgka ls "kknh gksus ds 3&4 jkst ckn eSa e; esjh iRuh o cPpksa dks tks/kiqj yk;k tgka ls tfj;s cl lk;yk vk;s tks/kiqj eSaus esjh vkSjr dks lenM+h gksdj lk;yk vkus dks dgk rks euk fd;k lk;yk vkus ds ckn esjh vkSjr esjs ls Vs<+h pyrh Fkh eSa dgrk oSls ugha djrh Fkh eq>s dgrh cPpksa dks j[kks vkt djhc 5 cts esjh vkSjr ckgj xbZ fdl ds ogka xbZ irk ugha okfil djhc ,d ?kaVk ckn vkbZ o [kkuk cuk;k esjs fy;s f[kpM+h cukbZ [kqn ds ikiM+ksa dk lkx o Qqyds cuk;s eSaus [kkuk [kk fy;k esjs vkSjr NksVs cPps dks ih.kk esa lqyk;k gqvk Fkk cM+k cPpk fiUVw o esjh iRuh iksy esa cSBs Fks eSa esjh iRuh ls rax vk x;k Fkk eq>s ,d ne jhl vkbZ rc eSaus esjh vkSjr o cPpksa dks tku ls ekjuk mfpr le>dj jlksbZ ds ikl iM+s gSUM iai ds yksgk ds gSUMy ls esjh vkSjr ds /kM+k&/kM+ flj esa o eqag ij pksVsa ekjha og csgks"k gks xbZ rc fiUVw ds flj esa nks ekjh og Hkh csgks"k gks x;k fQj ujsUnz ds iSj ij o flj ij ekjh rc og Hkh ej x;k rhuksa dks ejs le>dj lh/kk vkids ikl vk;k gwa ftl yksgk ds gSUMy ls esjh vkSjr o cPpksa dks ekjs gSa ekSdk ij gh j[kdj vk;k gwa

2.1 Based on the above statement, a case was registered under

Section 302 IPC on 18.08.1991 (Ex.P/23).

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (3 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

2.2 The case of the prosecution is that due to such beating, wife

of accused-respondent Pushpa and one son namely Narendra died.

2.3 After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused-

respondent under Sections 302, 307 IPC and subsequently

additional charge was framed against him under Section 304-B

IPC. Accused-respondent denied the charges levelled against him

and pleaded innocence.

2.4 During trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and got 29

documents exhibited i.e. Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/29. Statement of accused-

respondent was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. In defence, the

accused-respondent got 9 documents exhibited i.e. Ex.D/1 to

Ex.D/9.

2.5 Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court

acquitted accused-respondent from the charges leveled against

him vide impugned judgment.

2.6 Being aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been

preferred by the State against acquittal of the accused-

respondent.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Trial

Court failed to appreciate the statements of the witnesses in the

correct perspective, thereby committing a grave and serious error

of law in acquitting the accused-respondent of the charges under

Sections 302, 307 and 304-B IPC. It is further submitted that in

the instant case, information was given by the accused-

respondent himself, which amounts to his confessional statement.

It is further submitted that presence of accused-respondent at the

time of incident in the house, which was in his exclusive

possession, absolutely rules out the possibility of a stranger's

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (4 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

entry during the daytime. It is also submitted that accused-

respondent's remorseful conduct immediately after the occurrence

is admissible in evidence.

3.1 It is submitted that recovery of iron handle of hand pump at

the instance of accused-respondent pursuant to his confessional

statement is also relevant and admissible in evidence. It is further

submitted that at the time of lodging report, accused-respondent

was wearing a tehmal (lungi) stained with human blood, which

connects him to the crime and indicates his presence on the spot

at the time of incident.

3.2 It is also submitted that from the evidence of Kanhaiya Lal

(PW-10), Nand Kishore (PW-12) and Smt. Sugni Bai (PW-13),

father, brother and mother of the deceased respectively, it was

clearly established that there were complaints by the deceased-

wife that accused-respondent used to harass her and also gave

threats for finishing her life for want of money. It is submitted that

there was also evidence that money was paid by father, mother

and brother of the deceased-wife to satisfy the demands of

accused-respondent. There was also evidence to show that

accused-respondent wanted to marry another woman. It is also

submitted that since the incident took place within five years from

the date of marriage, there is a presumption of guilt under Section

113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act of

1872').

3.3 On the basis of above submissions, learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt. In view of above circumstances, there was no reason to

disbelieve the prosecution case and, therefore, learned Public

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (5 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

Prosecutor prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned

judgment. Learned Public Prosecutor further prayed that the

impugned judgment may be reversed and accused-respondent

should be held guilty for the offences charged.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

accused-respondent submitted that the learned Trial Court has

thoroughly appreciated the evidence and material available on

record and rightly held that prosecution has failed to prove the

case beyond reasonable doubt.

4.1 It is submitted that statement given by accused-respondent

to the police officer is not admissible in evidence. Any statement

given to a police officer is not admissible under Section 25 of the

Act of 1872. It is submitted that no recovery was made at the

instance of the accused-respondent. It is also submitted that there

are contradictions in the statement of witnesses. It is further

submitted that though it is correct that information was given by

accused-respondent to the police officer, however, statement was

not recorded as was given by accused-respondent. It is also stated

that the house was not in the possession of accused-respondent.

It is submitted that when accused-respondent saw his wife and

children in injured situation, he immediately rushed to the police

station and submitted a report. He took the name of Hastimal.

However, police did not record the Memorandum of Statement

correctly. It is further stated that the accused-respondent has

falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the

respondent relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar

reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 119.

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (6 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

6. There is no direct evidence/eye witness of the incident. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand

Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116

has held that when the case is entirely based on circumstantial

evidence, the chain of evidence must be so far complete, such

that every hypothesis is excluded but the one proposed to be

proved. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the above-referred judgment read as under :

"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established :

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established......

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (7 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

7. To prove the case, the prosecution has laid emphasis on the

information given by the accused-respondent himself as his

confessional statement and the recovery of articles made on the

basis of the said statement (Ex.P/22). It is settled law that no

confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a

person accused of any offence. However, Section 27 of the Act of

1872 provides that the information given by the accused can be

read against him which distinctly relates to the facts thereby

discovered. Reference can be made to the judgments delivered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Delhi Administration

Vs. Bal Krishan & Ors. reported in (1972) 4 SCC 659 and

Aghnoo Nagesia (supra).

8. This Court observes that there are following inconsistencies

and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

8.1 SHO Ram Lal (PW-11) stated that after registration of FIR

(Ex.P/23), while making the accused-respondent to sit in police

station, he went to hospital, where head-constable Roop Singh

(PW-8) had brought injured Pushpa and Pintu in unconscious

condition. He further stated that considering serious condition of

the injured, as per the advice of Doctor, he sent both of them

along with head-constable Roop Singh (PW-8) to the hospital at

Jalore, whereas, Roop Singh (PW-8) has not made any such

statement in his evidence that he took Pushpa and Pintu to the

hospital.

8.2 Ram Lal (PW-11) has further stated that from the hospital,

after reaching to the police station, he arrested the accused-

respondent in the presence of motbirs Rajendra Kumar and Deva

Ram. At that time, accused was wearing tehmal (lungi), which was

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (8 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

taken into possession in the presence of motbirs. Ram Lal (PW-11)

has also stated that accused-respondent was arrested at 1 AM in

the midnight of 18.09.1991 and 19.09.1991, whereas Rajendra

Kumar (PW-3) has not stated the same thing in his statement. He

stated that he went to the police station around 12 noon to 1 PM

on 19.08.1991 and at that time, memo of arrest was made.

8.3 Ram Lal (PW-11) has stated that Rajendra Kumar (PW-3)

motbir was going in his jeep towards Barmer, his jeep was stopped

in front of the police station and was made a motbir in the night,

whereas Rajendra Kumar (PW-3), stated that due to some

personal work with SHO, he went to police station, however, he

refused to give explanation about said personal work.

8.4 Ram Lal (PW-11) admitted that he knew Hastimal. Initially,

he stated that he had never heard about any enmity between

accused-respondent and Hastimal. However, upon showing

complaint (Ex.D/8), he admitted that the complaint under Section

107/116 (3) Cr.P.C. was submitted by him, which bears his

signatures. He also stated that accused-respondent had submitted

a report (Ex.D/9) regarding threat to life from Hastimal. It can be

inferred that he was trying to conceal the truth for which no

explanation was offered by him.

8.5 Ram Lal (PW-11) further stated that he did not carry out

proceedings at the place of incident on 18.08.1991 as it was late

in the night and, therefore, he reached on the site on the next day

i.e. 19.08.1991 and carried out inspection in the presence of

motbirs. It is relevant to note that as per the testimony of SHO

Ram Lal (PW-11), Head Constable Roop Singh (PW-8) brought

injured Pushpa and Pintu to the hospital. He has also stated that

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (9 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

he went to the house of accused-respondent to bring his clothes

and at that time house was open. This shows that the police

personnel entered in the house in the absence of accused-

respondent on 18.08.1991. Clearly, police officer visited the place

many a time in absence of accused, however, no recovery was

made in the night of 18.08.1991, therefore, it cannot be said that

recovery of weapon was made at the instance of accused.

8.6 It is also pertinent to note that FIR (Ex.P/23) has been

shown to be registered at around 8-9 PM on 18.08.1991. In clause

No.11 of the said report, it is mentioned that Pushpa had died. As

per the statement of Ram Lal (PW-11), Pushpa died at midnight of

19.08.1991. In clause 11, it is also mentioned that Pushpa and

Narendra died due to injuries caused by accused. As per the post

mortem report (Ex.P/11), Pushpa's death occurred after midnight

of 19.08.1991. If Pushpa died at midnight, then, there was no

occasion to have mentioned of her death in the FIR, which was

stated to be registered at 9 PM on 18.08.1991 i.e. prior to her

death. This clearly shows that the report was registered after the

death of Pushpa raising suspicion in the fair investigation.

8.7 Roop Singh (PW-8) has stated in his statement that the

articles were given to Inder Singh (PW-9) on 04.09.1991 for

chemical examination, however, there is no entry of the same in

the Malkhana Register (Ex.P/18). Inder Singh (PW-9) has stated in

his evidence that firstly, he took the articles on 04.09.1991 along

with articles of another case. However, there being objection, he

brought back the articles to the Police Station Sayla and,

thereafter, he again carried the articles on 05.09.1991, however,

he failed to give explanation as to why there is no entry of

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (10 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

carrying articles on 04.09.1991 in the Malkhana Register

(Ex.P/18). If the articles were carried for chemical examination on

04.09.1991, there would have been entry in the Malkhana

S.P. Office with regard to the articles, no explanation has been

furnished. The articles were handed over to Mr. Parbat Singh in

the S.P. Office, however, Parbat Singh has not been produced by

the prosecution in evidence. There is no explanation that in S.P.

Office the articles remained with whom, which shows that there

was some objection with respect to articles of this particular case,

which was tried to be concealed by the prosecution.

8.8 The FSL Report (Ex.P/29) mentions that the articles including

tehmal (lungi) and handle of hand pump were stained with human

blood, however, the blood groups of the stains could not be

determined. In light of the above inconsistencies, contradictions

and in the absence of connecting evidence, the prosecution has

failed to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent beyond

reasonable doubt.

9. This Court observes that statements of Kanhaiya Lal

(PW-10), Nand Kishore (PW-12) and Smt. Sugni Bai (PW-13),

father, brother and mother of the deceased Pushpa respectively

were taken by the police personnel in Phalodi District on

24.08.1991. There is no explanation as to why the statements

were taken after a delay of 6 days after the date of incident and

from this, alongwith other evidence, it can be inferred that the

statements regarding harassment for dowry are after thought.

9.1 Kanhaiya Lal (PW-10) has stated that he went to Sayla on

20.08.1998 but he did not tell anything to police. He did not even

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (11 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

to police station. He has also stated that he had lent money to his

daughter. He also admits that in Ex.D/4 and Ex.D/5 written by

him, there is no reference of any harassment by the accused-

respondent for demand of dowry.

9.2 Nand Kishore (PW-12) has stated that when he went to take

the deceased for marriage of his younger brother, at that time, the

accused-respondent made three demands i.e. colour television,

scooter and Rs.11,000/-. He also stated that accused-respondent

wanted to solemnize second marriage for dowry and cash.

However, in the statement of Nand Kishore (Ex.P/27), it was not

mentioned that the accused-respondent made the above three

demands. Clearly, he improved his statement.

9.3 Similarly, when Smt. Sugni Bai (PW-13) was confronted with

her statement (Ex.P/28), she could not explain anything.

9.4 On the other hand, accused-respondent had produced letters

(Ex.D/4) to (Ex.D/7). A perusal of (Ex.D/6), letter dated

18.01.1991, which was written by accused-respondent to his wife

Pushpa, on which, Kanhaiya Lal was also confronted reveals that

accused-respondent and his wife had cordial relations. In letter

(Ex.D/4) written by Kanhaiya Lal to Khetmal Ji (deceased Pushpa's

father-in-law) and letter (Ex.D/5) written by Kanhaiya Lal to

Motilal (accused), there is no complaint regarding demand of

dowry by the accused. The accused-respondent was invited to

attend marriage of his brother-in-law. In the evidence, it is also

found that accused-respondent had attended the marriage.

9.5 The evidence of Kanhaiya Lal (PW-10), Nand Kishore (PW-

12) and Smt. Sugni Bai (PW-13), father, brother and mother of

the deceased respectively do not prove that the deceased Pushpa

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (12 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

was treated with cruelty by the accused-respondent for demand of

dowry to draw presumption under Section 113-B of the Act of

1872.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallappa & Ors.

Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1162/2011,

decided on 12.02.2024) held as under :

"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as :

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of

(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:47:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB] (13 of 14) [CRLA-131/1993]

evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."

11. The scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by

the learned Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned

judgment of the learned Trial Court demonstrates a legally

plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify

the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

aforementioned judgments, and thus, on that count also, the

impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the

instant appeal.

12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into

the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the

aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit

case warranting any interference with the detailed, reasoned and