[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kisan @ Kishan vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.181/2025
Kisan @ Kishan S/o Nana @ Nena Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Aret Ki Bhagal (Bheel Basti), Police Station Kelwada District
Rajsamand Raj.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Budha Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)
1. Date of conclusion of argument 13.04.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was 13.04.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
operative part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 16.04.2026
1. The present D B Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant Kisan @ Kishan S/o Shri Nana @ Nena Ram under
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. (415 of BNSS-2023) assailing the validity of
judgment dated 18.12.2024 and sentence dated 20.12.2024
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Family Court),
Rajsamand, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial court") in
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB] (2 of 12) [SOSA-1010/2025]
Sessions Case No. 09/2022, whereby the learned trial court
convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections
302 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:-
Offence under Imprisonment and Fine In default of Fine
Section
302 of IPC Life Imprisonment and Fine of Further to undergo
Rs. 10,000/- One months R.I.
342 of IPC One Year's R.I and Fine of Further to undergo
Rs. 1,000/- 15 Day's R.I.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as unfolded from the
record, is that on 14.01.2022, the complainant Smt. Lalki Bai
submitted a written report (Exhibit P-1) at Police Station Kelwada
alleging therein that on the fateful evening, her husband Ghisaram
and Kishan (son of Nanalal), who is the son of her husband's elder
brother, had been consuming liquor together. It was alleged that
at about 11:00-12:00 in the night, she heard loud cries
emanating from outside, whereupon her husband was shouting for
help, stating that Kishan was assaulting him. Upon hearing such
hue and cry, the complainant immediately rushed out of her house
and attempted to intervene. At that juncture, she allegedly
witnessed her husband lying on the ground, while the accused
Kishan, armed with an iron rod, was repeatedly inflicting blows
upon him. Thereafter, the accused dragged the injured Ghisaram
inside the house, fastened the door from outside, and continued
the assault. It has been further alleged that after causing fatal
injuries, the accused dragged the body of the deceased to a
nearby mud house and thereafter absconded from the place of
occurrence.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB] (3 of 12) [SOSA-1010/2025]
3. On the basis of the said information, a formal FIR No.
21/2022 (Exhibit P.24) was registered at Police Station, Kelwada,
Rajsamand against the accused-appellant for the offence under
Section 302 IPC.
4. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet
against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 302
and 342 IPC before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh,
Rajsamand, from where the case, being exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, was committed to the Court of Sessions and
thereafter transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge Rajsamand, for trial.
5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the
charges under Sections 302 and 342 of IPC to the accused-
appellant, who denied the same and sought for trial.
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14
witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence from Exp. P-1 to
P-31.
7. The statements of the accused-appellant was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein all the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to
him. In response thereto, the accused-appellant denied the
correctness of the prosecution case in its entirety and asserted
that the evidence adduced against him was false and concocted.
He claimed innocence and pleaded that he had been falsely
implicated in the present case. The accused further stated that he
had not caused the death of Ghisaram and that no incriminating
article had been recovered from his possession or from his house.
The accused-appellant did not lead any evidence in defence.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB] (4 of 12) [SOSA-1010/2025]
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
18.12.2024 and 20.12.2024 respectively.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2024 and order of sentence
dated 20.12.2024, the accused-appellant has preferred the
present appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that
the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction
dated 18.12.2024 and the order of sentence dated 20.12.2024 as
being wholly unjust, illegal and contrary to the material available
on record. He submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to
properly appreciate the evidence and has overlooked material
contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution case,
rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in the eyes of
law.
11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that
the accused - appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated
in this case on account of personal enmity. He submitted that the
deceased was habituated to consuming liquor on a daily basis and,
on the date of the incident as well, he had consumed excessive
liquor and allegedly sustained injuries on account of a fall. He
further submitted that the medical evidence on record indicates
that the deceased had suffered multiple injuries prior to his death,
which, according to the defence, probabilises the version that the
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB] (5 of 12) [SOSA-1010/2025]
injuries were not the result of any assault by the accused-
appellant.
12. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the testimony of
PW-1 Smt. Lalki Bai and submitted that her version suffers from
inherent improbabilities. He submitted that although she claimed
to have witnessed the accused-appellant assaulting the deceased
during the night, she also stated that she saw her husband lying
dead only on the next morning. He further submitted that such
conduct is unnatural and renders her testimony unreliable,
thereby suggesting that a false story has been subsequently
concocted and the death of the deceased was in fact natural.
13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submitted
that the First Information Report was lodged with an unexplained
delay of about two days, which casts a serious doubt on the
veracity of the prosecution case and indicates that the same is an
afterthought. Learned counsel has also attempted to suggest that
there were internal disputes within the family, and allegations of
harassment, which, according to him, further weaken the
prosecution story.
14. With regard to the medical evidence, learned counsel for the
accused-appellant submitted that the doctors, namely Dr. Sudhir
Sharma and Nagendra Pal have opined the cause of death to be
neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock, which, according to the
defence, does not conclusively establish the involvement of the
accused - appellant in causing the injuries.
15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that
PW-6 Heera Ram has not supported the prosecution case and has
been declared hostile, while the remaining witnesses are merely
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB] (6 of 12) [SOSA-1010/2025]
hearsay in nature, having deposed on the basis of what was
allegedly told to them by PW-1 Smt. Lalki Bai. This, according to
learned counsel, renders the prosecution case doubtful.
16. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the deceased was
heavily intoxicated on the night of the incident and had gone to
sleep in a kachcha house, and it was only on the next morning
that the complainant found him dead.
17. On these premises, Learned counsel for the accused-
appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has
committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the accused-
appellant. He therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 18.12.2024 and 20.12.2024
passed by the learned trial court be set aside and the appellant be
acquitted of the charges.
18. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
submissions made by the counsel for the accused-appellant and
has supported the prosecution case set out before the trial court
and he submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by
the learned trial court convicting the accused-appellant under
Sections 302 and 342 of IPC vide judgment dated 18.12.2024.
19. We have considered the submissions made before this Court
and have carefully gone through the entire material available on
record, including the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2024 and
20.12.2024 respectively.
20. At the outset, it would be apposite to examine the
substratum of the prosecution case, namely the prompt lodging of
the First Information Report and its evidentiary value. The written
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB] (7 of 12) [SOSA-1010/2025]
report (Exhibit P-1) was submitted by PW-1 Smt. Lalkibai on
14.01.2022. From the testimony of PW-13 Mansingh, who formally
registered the FIR (Exhibit P-24), and PW-14 Praveen Tank, the
then Station House Officer, it stands established that the report
was prepared at the place of occurrence and was immediately
transmitted to the police station through Constable
Chandrashekhar for registration. The scribe of the report, PW-10
Zakir Mohammad, has unequivocally stated that he drafted the
report at the instance of PW-1 at the spot itself. The chain of
events, as emerging from these witnesses, clearly demonstrates
that the FIR was lodged without any undue delay. Thus, the
contention raised on behalf of the accused - appellant regarding
delay in lodging the FIR is devoid of merit and stands negated.
21. Coming to the testimony of PW-1 Smt. Lalkibai, who is the
star witness of the prosecution. From her statements, it is evident
that she has furnished a cogent and consistent account of the
occurrence. She has categorically deposed that on the night of the
incident, the accused-appellant Kishan assaulted her husband
Ghisaram with an iron rod after both had consumed liquor. She
has further stated that when she attempted to intervene, the
accused-appellant confined her by fastening the door from outside
and continued the assault. Her version that she discovered her
husband lying dead in the morning with multiple grievous injuries
finds substantial corroboration from contemporaneous
documentary evidence as well as other prosecution witnesses.
22. The presence of PW-1 at the place of occurrence is natural
and undisputed, being the wife of the deceased. Despite extensive
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB] (8 of 12) [SOSA-1010/2025]
cross-examination, nothing material has been elicited so as to
discredit her testimony.
23. The aspect relating to the manner in which PW-1 Smt.
Lalkibai emerged from the room does not affect the core of the
prosecution case. Though there is some lack of clarity as to
whether she was released by others or succeeded in coming out
on her own, the material on record unequivocally establishes that
she had been confined by the accused-appellant at the relevant
time. This circumstance, rather than creating any doubt, lends
intrinsic assurance to her testimony, as it explains her inability to
intervene while the assault was being perpetrated.
24. The version of PW-1 finds substantial corroboration from the
surrounding circumstances and the testimonies of other witnesses.
PW-2 Devaram, PW-3 Laluram, PW-4 Bhagaram and PW-5
Bhairaram have consistently deposed that upon reaching the
place of occurrence in the morning, they found the deceased lying
in a grievously injured condition and the body soaked in blood.
These witnesses have further stated that PW-1 informed them that
the accused Kishan had assaulted the deceased with an iron rod.
It is significant to note that PW-3 Laluram (real brother of the
accused) and PW-4 Bhagaram are closely related to the accused-
appellant. Their testimonies, therefore, carry greater evidentiary
value, as there is no apparent reason for them to falsely implicate
their own kin. Their statements inspire confidence and lend
corroboration to the prosecution case.
25. PW-6 Heeraram has not supported the prosecution case and
he has been declared hostile, however, considering the close
familial relationship between the parties, such hostility does not
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB] (9 of 12) [SOSA-1010/2025]
dent the otherwise cogent and reliable evidence on record. It is
well settled proposition of law that the testimony of a hostile
witness is not to be discarded in toto and can be relied upon to the
extent it supports the prosecution case.
26. The medical evidence assumes considerable significance in the
present case. The Panchayatnama (Exhibit P-4) and the post-mortem
report (Exhibit P-14), proved through PW-7 Dr. Nagendrapal Singh,
reveal multiple ante-mortem injuries on vital parts of the body,
including fractures of both upper limbs and lower limbs, along with
punctured and contused wounds. The post-mortem report (Ex. P-14)
establishes that the cause of death was neurogenic and haemorrhagic
shock resulting from these injuries. The nature, number and location of
the injuries clearly rule out any possibility of accidental fall and are
wholly consistent with the prosecution case of a brutal assault by a hard
and blunt object like an iron rod. Thus, the defence theory that the
deceased might have suffered injuries due to a fall while under the
influence of alcohol, is wholly untenable.
27. The recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the
accused-appellant further fortifies the prosecution case. The iron
rod (Exhibit P-7) and the blood-stained shirt of the accused-
appellant (Exhibit P-8) were recovered pursuant to information
furnished by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, as proved by PW-12 Babulal and corroborated by
PW-2 Devaram. The Investigating Officer PW-14 has also
substantiated these recoveries. Nothing substantial has been
elicited in cross-examination to discredit these recoveries.
28. The chain of custody of the seized articles has been duly
established through PW-11 Head Constable Pradeep Singh and
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB] (10 of 12) [SOSA-1010/2025]
PW-8 Constable Sunil Kumar. The entries in the Malkhana Register
(Exhibit P-22 and P-22A) and the forwarding letters (Exhibits P-16
and P-17) establish that the articles remained in sealed condition
and were duly transmitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory
without any possibility of tampering.
29. The FSL report (Exhibit P-27) provides strong corroborative
evidence. Human blood of the same group was detected on the
blood-stained soil, the shirt of the deceased, the iron rod
recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant, and the shirt
recovered from the accused-appellant. Furthermore, the blood
group found on the accused's shirt has been shown, by way of the
serological report (Exhibit P-29), to be that of the deceased and
not of the accused-appellant. This circumstance forms a vital link
in the chain of evidence, conclusively connecting the accused-
appellant with the crime.
30. Another important aspect which cannot be overlooked is the
absence of any motive for false implication. The accused-appellant
and the deceased were close relatives residing in proximity, and
there is no material on record to suggest any prior enmity. In such
circumstances, the testimony of PW-1, supported by other
evidence, cannot be discarded on the vague plea of false
implication.
31. The defence taken by the accused-appellant in his
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is a bare denial without any
substantiation. No plausible explanation has been offered by the
accused-appellant regarding the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him, particularly the recovery of blood-stained
articles and the presence of the deceased's blood on his shirt.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB] (11 of 12) [SOSA-1010/2025]
32. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon an independent
re-appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has
succeeded in proving its case against the accused-appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PW-1 Smt. Lalkibai
inspires confidence and stands duly corroborated by the medical
evidence, recoveries effected at the instance of the accused-
appellant, and the scientific evidence in the form of the FSL
reports. The chain of circumstances is complete and points
unerringly towards the guilt of the accused-appellant, ruling out
any hypothesis of innocence.
33. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on
a proper and judicious appreciation of evidence and do not suffer
from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
34. Consequently, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of
merit, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
35. The judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2024 and the order
of sentence dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned trial Court
are affirmed in toto. The conviction of the accused-appellant for
the offences under Sections 302 and 342 of the Indian Penal
Code, along with the sentence awarded there under, is upheld.
36. The accused-appellant is reported to be in custody. He shall
continue to serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned trial
Court.
37. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17182-DB] (12 of 12) [SOSA-1010/2025]
38. 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
27-Vaibhav/CP Goyal/-
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 10:15:44 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
