[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sapura vs State on 8 April, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 550/2015
Sapura S/o Shri Lasma, aged about 33 years, R/o.Village Jher,
P.S. Mandwa, District Udaipur (Raj.) (Presently lodged in Central
Jail, Udaipur).
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
Mr. Chain Singh Rathore &
Ms. Ayushi Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)
1. Date of conclusion of argument 06.04.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was 06.04.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
operative part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 08.04.2026
1. The instant D.B. Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
accused-appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated
16.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1,
Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial court") in
Sessions Case No. 04/2014, whereby the learned trial court
convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (2 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo five months' simple
imprisonment.
2. As per the prosecution case, the proceedings were set into
motion on the basis of the First Information Report (Ex.P.1) lodged
by PW-1 Batiya Ram subsequent to the incident. In the said
report, the informant - Batiya Ram (PW-1) stated that on
18.10.2013, he along with his younger brother Sohan @ Poya
(Deceased) and Malaram (Brother-in-law) had gone to the market.
After completing their work, at about 1:00 PM, they were standing
on the road near Prajapat Mohalla awaiting for a jeep to return
home. At that time, Sohan @ Poya went towards Prajapat Mohalla
to urinate, whereupon the accused-appellant Sapura allegedly
caught hold of his Neck with his left hand and inflicted a knife blow
on the left side of his chest with his right hand. Upon hearing the
cries of Sohan @ Poya, the informant and others rushed towards
the spot, whereafter the accused-appellant fled away from the
place of occurrence, While fleeing from the place of occurrence,
the accused-appellant was shouting that he had taken revenge for
the death of his sister, who had died in a jeep accident during the
Kagwas fair. It was further stated that Sohan @ Poya succumbed
to his injuries while being taken to the hospital.
3. On the basis of the said written report (Ex.P.1), a formal FIR
No. 118/2013 (Ex.P.13) was registered at Police Station Kotra,
District Udaipur for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and investigation was commenced.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (3 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
4. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-
sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Kotra, Udaipur from where the case was committed to
the Court of Sessions Judge Kotra, Udaipur and from there the
case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur
for trial.
5. The learned trial court, after hearing arguments on charge,
framed, read over and explained the charges under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code to the accused-appellant, who denied the
same and claimed trial.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 10 witnesses, exhibited documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16, in
support of its case; whereafter the prosecution evidence was
closed.
7. After the prosecution evidence was concluded, the accused-
appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, wherein he denied all the allegations, claimed false
implication due to ulterior motives, and asserted his innocence. No
evidence in defence was led by the accused-appellant.
8. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments advanced
by both sides and upon appreciation of the evidence available on
record, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under
Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him vide
judgment dated 16.05.2015, as mentioned hereinabove.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment dated 16.05.2015 passed by the learned trial court, the
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (4 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
accused-appellant has preferred the present appeal before this
Court.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-
appellant assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
16.05.2015 passed by the learned trial court contending that the
same suffers from serious infirmities and is liable to be set aside.
11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is contrary
to the facts available on record as well as settled principles of law
and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He further
submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to properly
appreciate and evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
in its true perspective, resulting in an erroneous finding of
conviction.
12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that a
bare perusal of the First Information Report (Ex.P/1) lodged by
PW-1 Batiya Ram creates serious doubt in the prosecution story,
inasmuch as the complainant himself has admitted during his
deposition that he had given three oral reports to the police. The
version reflected in the written report does not tally with the oral
information allegedly furnished earlier, thereby rendering the
prosecution case doubtful. He further submitted that the appellant
has been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity and
that the learned trial Court has failed to examine the evidence in
light of such discrepancies and lack of corroboration.
13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that
PW-2 Mala Ram has categorically stated that he did not witness
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (5 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
the incident and reached the spot only thereafter, where he found
the deceased lying on the ground with blood oozing out. However,
the site inspection memo (Ex.P/2) does not indicate the presence
of blood at the spot, and even PW-10 Dalpat Singh, the
Investigating Officer, has admitted that no blood was found at the
place of occurrence. This material contradiction creates a serious
dent in the prosecution story, which has not been properly
appreciated by the learned trial Court.
14. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the
testimony of PW-4 Dr. Sandeep Shukla, who conducted the
postmortem, is also not in consonance with the prosecution case.
Although he found a single injury on the chest and noted the
presence of blood on the clothes and at the place of occurrence,
the same is not corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating
Officer. He further submitted that the medical evidence does not
support the prosecution version and raises doubt regarding the
alleged use of a knife. He also submitted that independent
witnesses of the site have not been examined by the prosecution,
which further weakens the case.
15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the
alleged recovery of the knife has not been proved in accordance
with law. PW-7 Thawara, the recovery witness, has not stated
clearly as to from whom and from where the knife was recovered,
thereby rendering the recovery doubtful. Although the FSL report
indicates the presence of blood group "B" on the knife and clothes
of the deceased, the blood group of the accused has not been
determined, and thus no conclusive link can be established
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (6 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
between the accused appellant and the weapon. In absence of a
proved recovery, the FSL report loses its evidentiary value.
16. Lastly, Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted
that the accused-appellant had duly explained the incriminating
circumstances in his statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., however, the learned trial Court has failed to consider the
same in its proper perspective. On these grounds, learned counsel
urges that the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable
in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
17. Alternatively, Learned counsel for the accused-appellant
vehemently submitted that the present case does not travel
beyond the ambit Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
He further submitted that the prosecution evidence itself reflects
that only a single blow was inflicted by the accused-appellant and
there was no repetition of blow. He further submitted that the
incident occurred on the spur of the moment, without any
premeditation or prior intention to cause the death of the
deceased Sohan @ Poya. In such circumstances, the essential
ingredients of Section 302 IPC are not made out. Accordingly, He
prayed that the conviction of the accused-appellant be altered
from Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC.
18. E-converso, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Rajesh Bhati has
opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the
accused-appellant and has supported the prosecution case set out
before the learned trial court and he submitted that there is no
infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (7 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code vide judgment dated 16.05.2015.
19. Having heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant
and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and upon a
thorough and meticulous re-appreciation of the entire evidence
available on record, including the impugned judgment dated
16.05.2015., this Court proceeds to examine the correctness,
legality, and propriety of the findings recorded by learned trial
court.
20. As per the prosecution case, the genesis of the incident is
reflected in Exhibit P.1, the First Information Report dated
18.10.2013, lodged by the complainant Batiya Ram (PW-1). In the
said report, it has been stated that on the day of the incident, the
complainant, his brother Sohan @ Poya (deceased), and his
brother-in-law Malaram (PW-2) had gone to Kotda market. After
completing their work, while they were waiting near the bus stand
for a vehicle to return home, deceased-Sohan @ Poya went
towards Prajapat Mohalla to urinate. At that juncture, the
accused-appellant Sapura allegedly caught hold of his Neck with
his left hand and inflicted a knife blow on the left side of his chest
with his right hand. upon hearing the cries of the deceased, the
complainant and others rushed towards the spot, but the accused-
appellant fled away, uttering that the deceased was related to the
death of his sister in a jeep accident during the Kagwas fair and
that the act was committed as retribution. The deceased
succumbed to his injuries while being taken to the hospital.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (8 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
21. A perusal of the aforesaid version indicates that the
prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW-1
Batiya Ram and PW-2 Malaram as eyewitnesses to the occurrence.
In order to substantiate the prosecution case, documentary
evidence available on record has also been examined. Exhibit P.2
is the site plan, which shows that the incident took place near the
Kotda bus stand, however, it does not indicate the presence of
blood stains or any other incriminating material at the place of
occurrence. Exhibit P.3 is the Panchayatnama (Fard
Panchayatnama) of the dead body, wherein the Panchan witnesses
have opined that the death occurred due to excessive bleeding
caused by a knife injury on the left side of the chest. Exhibit P.4 is
the seizure memo of the blood-stained shirt of the deceased, duly
identified by witnesses including PW-3 Velia, who has supported
the prosecution case. Exhibit P.5 is the dead body handing-over
memo, and Exhibit P.6 is the injury report indicating a wound
caused by a sharp-edged weapon on the chest of the deceased.
Exhibit P.7 is the postmortem report, which opines that the death
was caused due to internal bleeding resulting from the said injury
and that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death.
22. Exhibit P.10 pertains to the recovery of the knife at the
instance of the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, witnessed by PW-7 Thawara, who has supported the
factum of recovery. Exhibits P.11 and P.12 relate to the recovery
proceedings and site inspection connected therewith. Exhibit P.13
is the check FIR and Exhibit P.14 is the arrest memo of the
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (9 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
accused-appellant. Exhibit P.16 is the FSL report prepared under
Section 293 Cr.P.C., wherein the articles sent for examination,
namely the shirt of the deceased and the recovered knife, were
found to contain human blood of the same group "B", thereby
providing scientific corroboration to the prosecution case.
23. The testimony of PW-1 Batiya Ram, being the complainant,
has been recorded in line with the contents of Exhibit P.1. During
cross-examination, he stated that the police reached the spot
within 10-15 minutes of the incident and recorded his oral
information at the site, obtaining his signatures as well as that of
PW-2 Malaram, along with the thumb impressions of other persons
present. He further stated that on the following day, a written
report was prepared with the assistance of a teacher in the
market, and another report was subsequently prepared by one
Mohammad Hanif, which he signed. Though certain discrepancies
have been pointed out regarding the existence of multiple reports
and non-availability of some of them on record, this Court is of the
considered view that such inconsistencies are attributable to the
rustic and illiterate background of the complainant and do not go
to the root of the matter. Exhibit P.1, which bears the signature of
the complainant and was prepared on his narration, clearly
mentions the name of the accused-appellant and the manner of
occurrence.
24. The statement of PW-1 further indicates that he saw the
accused-appellant form the distance of 100 feet fleeing from the
place of occurrence. Though it has been suggested that he
attempted to chase the accused-appellant, in the normal course of
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (10 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
human conduct, priority would be given to saving the injured
rather than apprehending the assailant. The presence of the
accused-appellant at the scene and his subsequent conduct stand
sufficiently established from the testimony of this witness.
25. PW-2 Malaram, the brother-in-law of the deceased has also
been examined. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did
not actually witness the act of stabbing but reached the spot
immediately thereafter and found the deceased lying injured and
bleeding. He further stated that a large number of persons were
present at the bus stand. He has also corroborated the fact that
the report was written by Mohammad Hanif and signed by him.
Though certain discrepancies have been elicited, the same are
minor in nature and do not materially affect the prosecution case.
His testimony, being part of the same transaction and proximate
to the occurrence, is relevant under the principle of res gestae and
lends support to the prosecution version.
26. PW-3 Velia has supported the prosecution case with regard
to the preparation of the Panchayatnama (Exhibit P.3) and seizure
of the blood-stained shirt (Exhibit P.4). He has also stated that the
deceased sustained a knife injury on the chest, which resulted in
his death.
27. PW-4 Dr. Sandeep Shukla, who conducted the medical
examination and postmortem, has proved the injury report
(Exhibit P.6) and postmortem report (Exhibit P.7). He has
categorically opined that the death of the deceased was caused
due to hypovolaemic shock resulting from internal bleeding due to
a stab injury on the chest, which had damaged a vital artery and
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (11 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. His
testimony firmly establishes that the death was homicidal in
nature. The absence of visible blood at the scene, as pointed out
during trial, does not materially affect the prosecution case in view
of the possibility of the scene being disturbed, particularly when
the Investigating Officer reached the spot on the following day.
28. PW-7 Thawara, a witness to the recovery has admitted his
signatures on the recovery memos (Exhibits P.10, P.11 and P.12)
and has supported the prosecution case regarding recovery of the
knife at the instance of the accused.
29. PW-5 Constable Waliram and PW-6 Constable Raju Meena
have proved the formal aspects relating to the deposit of the
seized articles in the Malkhana and their transmission to the
Forensic Science Laboratory. PW-8 Ladu and PW-9 Kesara are
formal witnesses to the Panchayatnama proceedings and do not
require detailed discussion.
30. PW-10 Dalpat Singh, the Investigating Officer has deposed
regarding the investigation conducted by him and has proved the
documents from Exhibits P.1 to P.16. In cross-examination, he
admitted that he reached the place of occurrence on the next day
and that no blood stains were found at the spot. He also admitted
that the place of occurrence was a busy area, which could explain
the absence of such evidence. Though no independent witnesses
from nearby shops were examined, the investigation as a whole
does not suffer from any such infirmity as would render the
prosecution case doubtful.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (12 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
31. Upon a comprehensive and meticulous appreciation of the
entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record,
this Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing
a coherent and credible chain of circumstances pointing unerringly
towards the guilt of the accused-appellant Sapura. The
testimonies of PW-1 Batiya Ram and PW-2 Malaram, when read
conjointly and in light of the surrounding facts and circumstances,
inspire confidence and form a reliable foundation of the
prosecution case. Their presence at or near the place of
occurrence stands duly established, and their version regarding
the involvement of the accused-appellant remains consistent on
material particulars.
32. The ocular evidence finds substantial corroboration from the
medical evidence adduced through PW-4 Dr. Sandeep Shukla,
whose testimony, along with the injury report and postmortem
report, unequivocally establishes that the death of the deceased
was homicidal in nature and was caused by a stab injury inflicted
on a vital part of the body. The nature, location and severity of the
injury, as described in the medical evidence, clearly demonstrate
that the same was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death.
33. Further, the recovery of the weapon of offence at the
instance of the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act lends additional assurance to the prosecution case.
This circumstance is fortified by the Forensic Science Laboratory
report (Exhibit P.16), which reveals that the blood detected on the
recovered knife as well as on the clothes of the deceased was of
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (13 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
the same group "B", thereby establishing a vital scientific link
connecting the accused-appellant with the crime.
34. Thus, the ocular, medical and scientific evidence, when
appreciated in totality, form a complete and unbroken chain of
incriminating circumstances. Each link in this chain stands duly
proved and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused-appellant, leaving no reasonable ground for a
contrary inference. The cumulative effect of the evidence on
record clearly establishes the involvement of the accused-
appellant in the commission of the offence beyond reasonable
doubt.
35. Having given thoughtful consideration to the alternative
submission advanced by learned counsel for the accused-
appellant, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the
case would fall within the ambit of Part I of Section 304 of the
Indian Penal Code. The material available on record clearly
indicates that the act of the accused-appellant was not a result of
a sudden or unpremeditated occurrence. Rather, the
circumstances reveal the existence of a prior motive, as is evident
from the conduct of the accused-appellant and his utterances at
the time of the incident, indicating a sense of revenge. Further,
the nature of the weapon used, being a sharp-edged knife, and
the situs of the injury, i.e., a vital part of the body namely the
chest, unequivocally demonstrate that the act was committed with
the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause
death. The force and manner in which the blow was inflicted,
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (14 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
coupled with the choice of a vital organ, rule out the possibility of
the act being a mere result of a sudden quarrel without intention.
36. Merely because a single blow was inflicted would not, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, dilute the gravity of
the offence or bring it within the purview of Part I of Section 304
IPC. The totality of evidence clearly establishes premeditation and
a deliberate intention to cause fatal injury. Accordingly, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients of
Section 302 IPC stand fully satisfied, and the case does not
warrant conversion of conviction to Part I of Section 304 IPC.
37. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused-
appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction of the
accused appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is
well-founded.
38. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned
trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has
correctly concluded that the prosecution has proved the charge
against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
39. On the question of quantum of sentence, we have also heard
learned counsel for accused-appellant and have carefully
considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
entire material available on record. We are of the considered view
that the learned trial court has rightly passed the sentence against
the accused-appellant and therefore no interference in the same is
warranted.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15548-DB] (15 of 15) [CRLA-550/2015]
40. Thus, in view of the above, the findings recorded by the
learned trial court do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or
Misappreciation of evidence warranting interference by this Court
in appellate jurisdiction.
41. Consequently, the present criminal appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 16.05.2015 passed by the learned trial court, whereby the
accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced accordingly,
are affirmed and upheld.
42. The accused-appellant is presently in custody. He shall
continue to undergo the sentence awarded to him by the learned
trial court.
43. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith along
with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary
compliance.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
-Kartik Dave/C P Goyal-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
