Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaikaran Kukna Alias Jaykaran Alias ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 September, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:41991-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 512/2025
AND
D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.101/2025
Jaikaran Kukna Alias Jaykaran Alias Jayram S/o Shri Malaram,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o Of Pemasar, P.S. Beechwal District
Bikaner Rajasthan
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak
Mr. Rajendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
with Mr. K.S. Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Judgment
BY THE COURT: (per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur)
Judgment reserved on: 09/09/2025
Pronounced on:26/09/2025
Learned counsel for the appellant, instead of pressing the
application for suspension of sentence, has prayed that the appeal
itself may be heard today.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is
dismissed as not pressed.
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:47:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41991-DB] (2 of 10) [SOSA-512/2025 &
CRLAD 101/2025]
With the consent of the parties, we have heard the appeal on
merits today itself.
The instant appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C./415 of BNSS
has been preferred by the appellant Jaikaran Kukna @ Jaykaran @
Jayram S/o Shri Malaram, against the judgment dated 14.01.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Women
Atrocities Cases) Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the learned
trial court for short), in Sessions Case No.06/2018, arising out of
FIR No.222/2017 lodged at Beechhwal, District Bikaner, whereby
the accused-appellant stands convicted for the offences under
Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC. By the said judgment, the
learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant as under:
UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC - LIFE IMPRISONMENT
AND FINE OF RS. 50,000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF
PAYMENT FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT OF
SIX MONTHS.
U/S 498A OF IPC - THREE YEARS RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT AND FINE OF RS. 2,000/- AND IN
DEFAULT OF PAYMENT FURTHER RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT OF THREE MONTHS.
Brief facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are that
on 10.10.2017, the complainant- Shri Ramnarayan submitted a
written complaint to the S.H.O, Police Station Beechwal, District
Bikaner. In the said complaint, it was stated that his daughter-
Smt. Surja Devi had been married about ten years earlier to Shri
Jaikaran, resident of village Pemasar, within the native village of
complainant i.e. Uttamsar, Tehsil Nokha. The complainant's son-in-
law used to harass and humiliate Surja Devi on account of
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:47:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41991-DB] (3 of 10) [SOSA-512/2025 &
CRLAD 101/2025]
demand of dowry and was persistently demanding a sum of
₹1,00,000/-. He had even turned her out of the matrimonial home
on an earlier occasion. On 09.10.2017, Surja Devi called her
father and informed him that her husband, in an inebriated
condition, was assaulting her for dowry, that he often returned
home drunk, subjected her to beatings, and repeated his demand
of ₹1,00,000/-. She also conveyed that he had threatened to kill
her if the demand was not fulfilled. The complainant assured her
that he would speak to Jaikaran. Thereafter, between 8:30-9:00
PM, the complainant spoke to his elder daughter, Kaushalya, w/o
Taruram, who resided at Pemasar, and was informed that a quarrel
had ensued and that Jaikaran, after consuming liquor, had beaten
Surja Devi and driven her out of the house. On 10.10.2017 at
about 11:00 AM, the complainant received a phone call informing
him that Jaikaran had murdered Surja Devi by inflicting blows with
an axe and bricks. Upon reaching village Pemasar along with his
family and relatives, the complainant met his elder daughter
Kaushalya and his eight-year-old grandson, Sitaram, who told him
that his father had killed his mother, Surja Devi, with an axe and
bricks.
On the basis of the above written complaint, a formal FIR
No.222/2017 (Exhibit P.26) was registered at Police Station
Beechwal, Bikaner against the accused for the offences under
Sections 302 and 498A, of the IPC.
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:47:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41991-DB] (4 of 10) [SOSA-512/2025 &
CRLAD 101/2025]
After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet
against the accused-appellant for the offences under section 302,
and 498A of the IPC.
Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the
charges under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC to the accused-
appellant, who denied the charge and sought trial.
During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14
witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced
documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-54.
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, Jairam alias Jaikaran, in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., asserted that blood samples were not taken
during the postmortem, and therefore it was impossible to match
the evidence with the blood samples obtained at the FSL. He
further stated that he and his brother were married to two sisters,
and in such a situation the witnesses had given false statements
with the intention to usurp his land, fields, and house. He also
submitted that he had been the Deputy Sarpanch of the village
and the entire village was divided into factions, and that someone
committed the incident due to political rivalry. According to him,
when he reached home, the police took him away with them. The
accused-appellant did not lead any defence evidence, and the
defence evidence was accordingly closed.
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:47:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41991-DB] (5 of 10) [SOSA-512/2025 &
CRLAD 101/2025]
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
14.01.2025. Hence the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that
the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and
that he has not murdered his wife, Smt. Surja. He submits that
there was no marital discord between the parties. He further
submits that the appellant has never raised any demand of dowry
as they had been married for more than 13 years and were living
a happy and comfortable life.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in the
statement of PW-3 Kaushalya, it has come on record that both the
sisters were married to two real brothers. PW-3 Kaushalya is
married to Taruram, and her sister, the deceased, was married to
the present appellant. While they had been living together for
many years, no demand of dowry was ever raised by the
appellant. Learned counsel further submits that there are material
contradictions in the statement of PW-3 Kaushalya. He submits
that the appellant is a political person and had political rivalry in
the village, and on account of such rivalry, his wife was murdered
and the allegation has been falsely fastened upon him.
Learned counsel submits that PW-4 Sitaram, the son of the
accused- appellant and the deceased, has not supported the
prosecution case and has been declared hostile. He further
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:47:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41991-DB] (6 of 10) [SOSA-512/2025 &
CRLAD 101/2025]
submits that as per the statement of PW-13 Dhirendra Singh
Shekhawat, Investigating Officer, the recoveries of the brick and
kulhari are doubtful. The brick produced before the trial court was
not the same as the one allegedly recovered at the instance of the
appellant. He further submits that in the statement of PW-13, it
has come on record that the colour of the T-shirt recovered and
the one produced before the court are different.
Learned counsel submits that the appellant is an agriculturist
and, therefore, possession of a kulhari in his house is common,
and its recovery at his instance cannot be said to be unusual. He
further submits that the Investigating Officer himself faced
difficulty in identifying the colour of the recovered articles, and
therefore, the articles produced before the court cannot be said to
have been properly identified.
Learned counsel submits that PW-5 Deburam, PW-6
Pemaram (S/o Rekharam), and PW-7 Pemaram (S/o Maluram)
have also not supported the prosecution case. On the strength of
these arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant has wrongly been convicted vide judgment dated
14.01.2025. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed and
the appellant be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the appellant and has supported the judgment
dated 14.01.2025.
Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the
presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:47:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41991-DB] (7 of 10) [SOSA-512/2025 &
CRLAD 101/2025]
operates against the appellant, as he was the husband of the
deceased and the occupant of the house from where the body was
recovered. He submits that the appellant was required to furnish a
plausible explanation regarding the incident that occurred on the
fateful day, but no satisfactory explanation has been provided,
even in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
PW-3 Kaushalya is the real sister of the deceased, who in her
statement, has deposed that initially after the marriage, the
deceased and her husband were living in the joint family, but 2-3
years prior to the date of incident, her father-in-law has separated
both the brothers, therefore, she was living in the house adjoining
to the one of the deceased. She has stated that the present
appellant, who was the husband of the deceased, was torturing
her and since he was unemployed and was not doing any
business, therefore, he was always forcing the deceased to bring
money from her parents. Just prior to one day of the incident her
sister deceased Surja told her that Jaikaran was forcing her to
bring Rs.1 lac. At around 11'O Clock in the morning while she was
doing her morning chores, she heard the noise of Surja and,
therefore, she ran towards the house of the deceased where she
saw that Jaikaran was inflicting blows with axe and bricks upon
Surja. Sita Ram son of the deceased and Jaikaran was weeping at
that time. Surja was lying in the pool of blood and when she
started shouting, Jaikaran ran away. In the cross-examination of
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:47:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41991-DB] (8 of 10) [SOSA-512/2025 &
CRLAD 101/2025]
this witness, she has stated that her house is five yard away from
the house of the deceased and further it is noted that there is
nothing contradictory has been stated to her statement in the
examination-in-cheif and, therefore, the argument of learned
counsel for the appellant that there are material contradictions in
her statement, is noted to be rejected.
PW-4 Sita Ram is the son of the appellant. He has been
declared hostile, however, a perusal of his cross-examination
shows that the answers to the suggestions given by him, supports
the statements made by PW-3 Kaushalya.
The other witnesses PW-5 Debu Ram, PW-6 Pema Ram S/o
Rekha Ram and PW-7 Pema Ram S/o Maluram have not supported
the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. In the
considered opinion of this Court, they are even not the material
witnesses as they are only the residents of the village where the
appellant and the deceased were living.
PW-10 Dr. Bhanwar Lal Jakhar, who conducted autopsy of
deceased Surja had stated in detail the kind of injuries found on
the body of the deceased. He stated that injury No.1 has been
inflicted with sharp edged weapon and is sufficient to cause death
in the normal course of nature.
PW-13 Dhirendra Singh Shekhawat has stated in his
statement the manner in which the recoveries have been effected
from the house of the appellant on the information supplied to him
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The minor
contradictions in his statement canvased by the learned counsel
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:47:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41991-DB] (9 of 10) [SOSA-512/2025 &
CRLAD 101/2025]
for the appellant are not of such nature, which discredit the entire
story of the prosecution. Therefore, we are not impressed by the
argument of learned counsel for the appellant.
Exhibit 18 is the post-mortem report wherein the cause of
death is reported to be head injury with cumulative effect on neck
injury antimortem in nature and injury nos.1 and 2 are sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature collectively as well
as individually clearly fortifies the statement of PW-10 Dr.
Bhanwar Lal Jakhar and corroborates the entire evidence of PW-3
Kaushalya.
It is further noted that on the information given by the
appellant himself there is recovery of weapon of offence - axe
vide Ex.22, which fortifies the use of weapon in the commission of
offence by the appellant. The witness of recovery PW-11 Om
Singh has also stated in his statement that recovery of the
weapon of offence has been made in his presence fortifying the
recovery of axe.
Further, as per the FSL report (Ex.42), the blood stains found
on t-shirt of the accused and on the axe, is of the human B-group,
which is matching the blood group on the blouse and Ghaghara of
the decease. This corroborates the statement of PW-3 Kaushalya
and the involvement of the appellant in the present case.
The argument of learned counsel that because of the political
rivalry, somebody has murdered the wife of the appellant is too
weak defence particularly when nobody was named by the
appellant during trial that who was having the political rivalry.
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:47:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41991-DB] (10 of 10) [SOSA-512/2025 &
CRLAD 101/2025]
Further, the accused-appellant was under an obligation to explain
the truth of the matter and to tell the complete story as mandated
under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act as the incident had
happened in his own house.
In view of the discussions made above, we are of the view
that there is credible, trustworthy and complete evidence to prove
the allegations levelled against the accused-appellant in the
present case and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by
the learned trial court while convicting and sentencing the
accused-appellant.
The appeal fails and the same is therefore, dismissed.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
kartik/cpgoyal/-
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:47:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
