[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rawat Singh vs State on 22 January, 2026

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       AT JODHPUR
                   D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 17/1988

1. Rewat Singh S/o Shri Shambhu Singh, by caste Rajput.
2. Shrwan Singh @ Karan Singh, S/o Shri Shambhu Singh, by
caste Rajput.
Both Residents of Hajiwas Police Station Kotri, District Bhilwara.
(Accused in District Jail, Bhilwara).
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                      Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Manish Shishodia, Sr. Advocate
                                  assisted by Mr. H.S. Rathore.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA


                                   Judgment


  1.    Date of conclusion of argument                       16.01.2026
  2.    Date on which the judgment was 16.01.2026
        reserved
  3.    Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
        operative part is pronounced
  4.    Date of Pronouncement                                22.01.2026



BY THE COURT:(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur)

1. The instant appeal has been preferred under section 374 Cr.P.C

by the accused-appellants Rewat Singh S/o Shri Shambu Singh,

and Shrwan Singh @ Karan Singh S/o Shri Shambu singh against

the judgment dated 16.12.1987 passed by the learned Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No.

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (2 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

38/1987 arising out of FIR No.43/87 (Ex.P-17), whereby the

accused-appellants stand convicted for the offence under Section

302/34 of the IPC and have sentenced them to undergo

imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of

payment of fine to further to undergo simple imprisonment for one

month.

2. As per prosecution story on 14.04.1987, the complainant-

Ratan Singh, appeared at Police Station Kotdi and submitted a

written report (Ex.P-1) stating therein that a dead body was lying

at the house of Umrao kanwar at village Thaleda. He reported that

while he was at his home, one Rupa Gurjar informed him about

the incident. Upon reaching the place of occurrence, he inquired

from Uda Ram S/o Sawai Ram Gujjar of Thaleda, who stated that

they had seen Thakur Saheb Rewat Singh and his brother, Shrwan

Singh, assaulting the deceased with sticks. The deceased was

identified as Govardhan Singh, resident of Gadoli. The body was

found lying at the house of Umrao kanwar.

3. On the basis of the above written complaint (Ex.P-1), a

formal FIR No.43/87 was registered at Police Station Kotdi,

Bhilwara against the accused-appellants for the offences under

Sections 302 and 452 IPC.

4. After completion of the investigation, the Police filed a

charge-sheet against the accused-appellants for the offences

under Sections 302/34 and 452 IPC.

5. Learned trial Court thereafter framed, read over and

explained the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (3 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

IPC to the accused-appellants, who denied the charge and sought

trial.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13

witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced

documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-22.

7. Both accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

during which they stated that the prosecution witnesses were

deposing falsely. They further asserted that Umrao kanwar had

given false statement due to a dispute relating to an adopted son,

and that Ladulal was biased against them. In their defence, the

accused examined DW-1 Udai Singh and DW-2 Shankar Singh,

whose statements were also recorded.

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-appellants as aforesaid vide judgment

dated 16.12.1987.

9. Hence the present appeal.

10. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the

alleged incident took place on 14.04.1987 and was reported on

the same day by PW-1 Ratan Singh. However, the initial report

was returned by the police with a direction to name the appellants

solely because the names of the accused were not mentioned

therein. PW-1, the author of the FIR, has turned hostile, and no

other signatory to the report has been produced by the

prosecution. It is on the basis of this report submitted by PW-1

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (4 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

the FIR (Ex. P-17) was ultimately registered. He further submitted

that although the FIR was lodged on 14.04.1987, the report was

forwarded to the learned trial court only on 16.04.1987, which is

evident from the endorsement made on Ex. P-17, indicating

suppression of the original report by the investigating agency.

11. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the

conviction of the accused-appellants rests solely on the testimony

of the alleged eyewitness (PW-5 Umrao Kanwar), who stated to be

the god-daughter of the deceased, making her an interested

witness. Her version has been accepted in isolation without any

corroboration, despite the fact that the remaining alleged

eyewitnesses either turned hostile or were held not to be eye-

witnesses by the learned trial court itself.

12. He further submitted that all the alleged incriminating

articles--including blood-stained soil, blood-stained lathi, and the

blood-stained clothes alleged to have been recovered from the

place of occurrence and forwarded for FSL examination, were

neither produced before the learned trial court, nor was any FSL

report brought on record. This omission renders doubtful both the

presence of PW-5 at the place of occurrence and the alleged

recovery of the weapon.

13. Learned senior counsel for the appellants placed reliance on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in delivered in the

case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC

614), and submitted that the testimony of PW-5 Umrao Kanwar

falls within the third category of witnesses--neither wholly reliable

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (5 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

nor wholly unreliable--and therefore required material

corroboration. In the present case, her testimony has neither been

duly scrutinized nor corroborated, particularly when her cross-

examination was conducted by the prosecution itself.

14. It is, therefore, submitted that convicting the accused-

appellants solely on the uncorroborated evidence of a single

interested witness (PW-5 Umrao Kanwar) unsupported by medical

evidence or any other testimony of eyewitness, is unsustainable in

the eyes of law. The prosecution has neither proved the motive

nor any recovery has been established to connect the accused-

appellants with the commission of alleged offence.

15. 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 learned trial court and he

submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the

learned trial court convicting the accused-appellants under Section

302 read with Section 34 of the IPC vide judgment dated

16.12.1987.

16. We have considered the submissions made before this Court

and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case,

including the impugned judgment dated 16.12.1987.

17. A close scrutiny of the material available on record reveals

that there appears no reason to doubt on the presence of PW-5

Umrao Kanwar at the place of occurrence. She is the god-daughter

of the deceased Govardhan Singh, and her presence at her own

residence, where the incident occurred, is entirely probable. The

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (6 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

other prosecution witnesses have also consistently affirmed her

presence at the place of occurrence. As per the statement of PW-5

Umrao Kanwar, the deceased Govardhan Singh had sustained

stick-blows on his head, resulting in profuse bleeding. This fact

finds corroboration from the statements of PW-1 Ratan Singh, PW-

2 Dhannalal, PW-3 Yasin Khan, and PW-4 Uda. All of them

specifically stated that the body of Govardhan Singh was lying at

the house of Umrao kanwar and he was bleeding.

18. The testimonies of PW-4 Uda and PW-5 Umrao kanwar

clearly indicate that both were present at the time of the assault.

PW-5 stated that in the afternoon of the full moon day of the

month of Chaitra, the deceased had come to her house to drink

water. PW-5 Umrao Kanwar described herself to be the god-

daughter of deceased. She further stated that the deceased asked

for a fan and requested that Uda be called. She then sent Nanda

to call Uda. At that time, she, Uda, and the deceased were seating

together. PW-4 Uda then moved towards the stove to light a beedi,

while PW-5 began filling water in a vessel. It was at this juncture

that the accused Shrwan Singh and Rewat Singh arrived, both

carrying sticks. PW-5 categorically stated that both of them

inflicted stick blow on the head of the deceased. She attempted to

intervene, but the assailants did not desist. Rewat Singh inflicted a

blow on the arm of the deceased, causing a fracture. PW-5 further

stated that Rewat Singh dragged Govardhan Singh out of the hut,

and that his head was split open and his arm broken.

Subsequently, on the call of PW-4 Uda, witnesses PW-3 Yasin, PW-

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (7 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

2 Dhannalal, and PW-1 Ratan Singh arrived at the place of

occurrence.

19. This sequence of events, as narrated by PW-5 and partially

corroborated by other witnesses, establishes her presence at the

place of occurrence and establishes the prosecution story of

assaulting the deceased by the accused-appellants.

20. From the testimony of PW-2 Dhannalal, it emerges that upon

reaching to the house of Umrao Kanwar, he found the body of the

deceased, Govardhan Singh, lying there with a head injury and

bleeding. He further stated that the deceased was wearing a

turban, his shoes were lying beneath it, and a stick and hand fan

were also found at the place of occurrence. The stick, according to

this witness was having bloodstains. He also deposed that the site

inspection report (Ex. P-3) and the post-mortem report (Ex. P-5)

were prepared, and that blood-stained soil and blood-soaked

shoes were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-6). The stick was

seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-7), the soil was seized vide

seizure memo (Ex. P-8), and the clothes and jewellery of the

deceased were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-9). All seized

articles were duly sealed on the spot. He further confirmed that

Umrao kanwar and Ratan Singh were present at the time.

21. The PW-3 Yasin Khan corroborates the statements of PW-2

Dhannalal. He stated that around noon, the accused Shrwan Singh

and Rewat Singh en-route him on a motorcycle and inquired about

the whereabouts of the deceased (Govardhan Singh). He informed

them that he had not seen him, and the accused then proceeded

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (8 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

towards the Kotdi road. Subsequently, when this witness went to

inquire about the health of Kalyan Singh, he met PW-4 Uda, who

was coming out from Umrao kanwar's house informed him that

Govardhan Singh had been killed. PW-4 Uda specifically named

the accused, Thakur Saheb Rewat Singh and Shrwan Singh of

Hajivas, as the persons, who had assaulted and killed the

deceased. On entering the house, PW-3 saw blood inside and

became alarmed. He then sent Rupa to call the Up-Sarpanch, PW-

1 Ratan Singh. He further stated that at the relevant time, he,

Uda, and Umrao kanwar were present at the place of occurrence.

22. A cumulative reading of the statements of PW-2 Dhannalal

and PW-3 Yasin Khan thus establish that the body of the deceased

was discovered in the house of Umrao kanwar, that a blood-

stained stick and other incriminating articles were found nearby,

and that shortly prior to the discovery of the body, the accused-

appellants had been seen inquiring about the deceased. The

presence of PW-4 Uda and PW-5 Umrao kanwar at the place of

occurrence also stands corroborated by their testimonies.

23. The testimony of PW-13, Banne Singh, Investigating Officer,

further corroborates the prosecution case. He stated that upon

receiving information, he proceeded to the place of occurrence,

where the dead body of the deceased, Govardhan Singh, was

found lying inside the house of Umrao kanwar. A stick and a pair

of shoes were lying near the body, and blood was present at the

place of occurrence. He deposed that the blood-stained shoes,

stick, and other articles were seized from the spot, duly packed

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (9 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

and sealed. The deceased's clothes, including his dhoti, shirt, vest,

and turban, were also seized. He further stated that a bicycle

chain tied around the waist of the deceased was recovered and

seized under a memo. The seizure memos were proved as Ex. P-7,

Ex. P-8, Ex. P-9, and other relevant exhibits. The inquest report

was prepared and marked as Ex. P-5, while the site inspection

memos were prepared as Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4. All these

documents bear his signatures.

24. PW-13 further stated that after completing the initial

investigation and preparation of the inquest report, the post-

mortem of the deceased was conducted. The accused-appellants

were thereafter arrested, and their arrest memos were proved as

Ex. P-18 and Ex. P-19. He also proved the voluntary statement of

accused Shrwan Singh (Ex. P-20), pursuant to which a motorcycle

was recovered from his house under seizure memo (Ex. P-21).

Similarly, on the basis of the statement of accused Rewat Singh

(Ex. P-22), a wooden stick was recovered and the seizure memo

marked as (Ex. P-7). The sealed packets were marked with the

sample seal, noted at point 'X' in Ex. P-13. Shoes, a bag, and

other articles were seized under Ex. P-16. He further stated that

the statements of PW-5 Umrao kanwar and Udai lal were recorded

and correctly reflected in Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-12, respectively.

25. The evidence of PW-13 thus corroborates the fact that the

assault upon the deceased occurred in the house of Umrao

kanwar, and that a prompt written report (Ex. P-1) was lodged

with the police. Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (10 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

commenced without delay. No material has been brought on

record to show any animosity between Umrao kanwar and the

accused-appellants. The mere fact that both Umrao kanwar and

the accused-appellant were desirous of adopting Udai Singh does

not, in any manner, establish hostility.

26. There are no material contradictions in the testimony of

PW-5 Umrao kanwar, the principal eyewitness. The presence of

another witness, Uda ram, at the time of the incident has also

been established, and although he later turned hostile, this by

itself does not render the testimony of PW-5 unreliable.

27. A careful examination of the entire chain of evidence led by

the prosecution as well as the connecting corroboration made by

the witnesses it establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the

accused, Rewat Singh and Shrwan Singh @ Karna Singh inflicted

injuries on the head and hands of the deceased Govardhan Singh

at the house of Umrao Kanwar at village Thaleda on 14.04.1987.

The nature, location, and severity of the injuries clearly indicate

that the assault was carried out with the intention to cause death,

or at the very least, with the knowledge that such injuries were

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature resulting into death. The

medical and ocular evidence conclusively proved that Govardhan

Singh succumbed to the injuries inflicted by the accused-

appellants.

28. PW-6 Ambalal, the doctor, who conducted post-mortem of

deceased Govardhana Singh and gave post-mortem report (Ex.P-

11) stated that on 15.04.1987, he was serving as a Medical Officer

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (11 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

at the Government Dispensary, Bourda. On the request of the

Station House Officer, Police Station Kotdi, he examined the body

of the deceased, Govardhan Singh, which was identified by

Ramprasad Upadhyay and Umrao kanwar. He in his statement

stated that following injuries were found on the body of the

deceased:

"1. Lacerated wound on the right eye brow 2½x1½x1/3".

2. Lacerated wound on the left pronto occipital region 1"x ½ x1/3"

3. Lacerated wound on left parito-occupital region 2 ½ x1"x1/3".

4. Lacerated would 2"x ½ x 2" on posterior aspect of left elbow situated just above the left elbow joint. There was dislocation of the joint."

29. He further stated that in his post mortem report he opined

that all the aforementioned injuries were caused by a blunt

weapon and that injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were sufficient to

cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to him,

the cause of death was "massive brain laceration and profuse

hemorrhagic tear leading to shock and death." The post-mortem

report (Ex.P/11) was proved by him and bears his signature.

30. From the medical evidence, it stands conclusively established

that the deceased, Govardhan Singh, died on 14.04.1987 at

village Taleda as a result of the injuries sustained on his head and

body.

31. From the evidence discussed above it stands established that

the accused, Shrwan Singh @ Karan Singh and Rewat Singh,

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (12 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

inflicted injuries on the head and hands of the deceased,

Govardhan Singh, by inflicting blow of sticks, and that the

deceased succumbed to the head injuries so caused. The evidence

further reveals that both the accused-appellants gave blows on

the vital part of the body of the deceased and, thereafter,

immediately fled from the place of occurrence on a motorcycle.

Prior to the incident, they had also made inquiries regarding the

whereabouts of the deceased from PW-3 Yasin Khan, which is a

circumstance pointing towards their prior determination and

premeditation of mind to commit the offence.

32. The argument of the learned senior counsel that PW-13

Banne Singh has falsely implicated the present appellants is not

worth credence as from perusal of the record this Court finds that

there was no enmity of PW-13 Banne Singh with the present

appellants. It has come on record that in the cross-examination of

PW-13 Banne Singh, there is no suggestion from the side of the

appellants that they were falsely implicated in the present case.

Therefore, we are not impressed by the argument that PW-13

Banne Singh has falsely implicated the present appellants.

33. The argument of learned senior counsel that the deceased

Govardhan Singh was a history - sheeter as number of cases were

registered against him and therefore, some person having enmity

with the deceased Govardhan Singh has inflicted injuries resulting

into his death is also improbable. We are afraid that the evidence

is otherwise clearly establishing a fact that it were the accused-

appellants who were inflicted fatal injuries upon the body of the

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:49:25 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3275-DB] (13 of 14) [CRLA-17/1988]

Govardhan Singh, resulting into his death. Even otherwise, the

accused-appellants cannot be given benefit on account of the fact

that deceased Govardhan Singh was a history-sheeter and,

therefore, his conduct led to his death in the present case.

34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pruthviraj

Jayantibhai Vanol Vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala & Ors. reported

in 2021 INSC 357 in para No.17 held as under:-

"17. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it. The evidence of PW- 2 and PW-10 is unimpeachable. It is only in a case where there is a gross contradictions between medical evidence and oral evidence, and there medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. In the present case, we find no inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence."

35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the view taken by it in

the case of Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol (supra), recently in

case of Chikkegowda & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported

in 2025 INSC 1213.

36. Taken together, these facts demonstrate that the accused-

appellants had a premeditated intention to assault and kill the

deceased. They arrived together at the house of PW-5 Umrao

Kanwar, and despite intervention, they did not desist from their

assault. On the contrary, both accused mercilessly inflicted

multiple blows on the head of the deceased clearly established

their common intention to cause his death. Their joint

participation in the assault, acting in concert, leaves no manner of