Sokaram @ Chogaram vs State
2026 Latest Caselaw 1248 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sokaram @ Chogaram vs State on 31 January, 2026

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 89/2020

Sokaram @ Chogaram S/o Daling Ji, Aged About 32 Years, By
Caste Bhil, R/o Aaka Thak Maggha Police Station, Sayra District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                      Versus
State, Through PP
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Ripudaman Singh
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Sharwan Singh Rathore, 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 28.01.2026

2. Date on which the judgment was 28.01.2026 reserved

3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment operative part is pronounced

4. Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2026

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section

374(2) Cr.P.C. by the accused-appellant Sokaram @ Chogaram,

son of Shri Daling ji, assailing the validity of judgment dated

06.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Bali, Pali, (hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial court') in

Sessions Case No. 1/2015, whereby the accused-appellant has

been convicted and sentenced for the following offence:-.

302 IPC Life imprisonment with a In default of payment of Fine of Rs.15,000/- fine to further undergo six months SI

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (2 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

2. As per prosecution case, on 09.11.2014, the complainant

Nanaram (PW-04) lodged a written report at Police Station Sadri

stating therein that his sister, Sonki, had been married to accused-

appellant Chogaram, son of Dalingji five years ago, as per the

Nata tradition prevailing in their society. It was alleged that the

couple had taken agricultural land on lease from Otaramji

Chaudhary resident of Sadri ka Bera for cultivation during the

relevant year. Approximately 6-7 days prior to the incident, Sonki

had visited her parental home at Walra along with her children

and, thereafter, returned back to Sadri Muthana. On 07.11.2014,

she telephonically informed that her husband was assaulting her.

On 08.11.2014, the complainant received information that Sonki's

dead body was lying in a room situated on the bera (well) of

Otaram Chaudhary. Upon reaching the Place of occurrence along

with his younger brother, they found her body in the said room.

On making inquiries from the neighbours', it was revealed that on

the night of 07.11.2014, at about 10-11 PM, a quarrel had taken

place between Sonki and the accused-appellant Chogaram, and

the neighbours had intervened to pacify them. The complainant

alleged that the accused-appellant assaulted Sonki with the

intention to kill her, causing grievous injuries, which resulted her

death.

3. On the basis of the above written report, a formal FIR

No.191/14 (Ex.P-06) was lodged at Police Station Sadri, Pali

against the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 302

of IPC.

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (3 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

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

sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section

302 of IPC.

5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the

charges under Section 302 of IPC to the accused-appellant, who

denied the same and sought trial.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17

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

documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-26.

7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C., during which he stated that the prosecution witnesses

were deposing falsely and had given false evidence. He further

asserted that at the time of incident, he was not at Otaram ka

Bera and was at Mewar for hiring labourers and that he came to

know about the incident only when the police informed him and

took him to the place of occurrence. In his defence, the accused-

appellant did not produce any oral or documentary evidence.

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

06.02.2020.

9. Hence the present appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the

learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in

its correct perspective. It was argued that there existed material

contradictions, manipulations and irregularities in the testimonies

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (4 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

of the prosecution witnesses; however, despite these glaring

infirmities, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict and

sentence the accused-appellant, rendering the impugned

judgment unsustainable in the eyes of law.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution's

story regarding the "last seen" evidence, allegedly witnessed by

Hiralal (P.W. 1), is wholly unreliable. During cross-examination

before the learned Trial Court, P.W. 1 categorically stated that he

had never visited Otaram's bera either prior to the incident or

thereafter. He further deposed that at the time of the occurrence

he was at his own house and was not present at the 'bera', and

that he did not even know when the incident took place. Learned

counsel submits that P.W. 1 also stated that the police had

obtained his signatures on Exhibit No.1 in the presence of the

Investigating Officer and that he had signed the document only

because the police had called him to the police station. This,

according to learned counsel, demolishes the prosecution's theory

of "last seen".

12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that

although the death of Sonki is stated to have occurred on

08.11.2014 and the Investigating Officer had allegedly received

information regarding the same, the prosecution has failed to

produce the daily diary report to substantiate the Investigating

Officer's visit to the place of occurrence on the relevant date. It

was contended that the prosecution neither examined the

neighbours of the crime scene nor mentioned in the site plan the

details of the adjoining houses.

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (5 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

13. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged

eyewitnesses, P.W. 9 Khartingram and P.W. 8 Mohanlal, had turned

completely hostile. Similarly, P.W. 1 Hiralal and P.W. 6 Otaram,

who were stated to have informed the police about the incident,

did not support the prosecution case, and Otaram denied having

given any such information to the police. P.W. 6 Otaram, the

owner of the 'bera' where the incident is alleged to have taken

place, also turned hostile and denied having any knowledge of the

occurrence.

14. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that

P.W. 5 Dr. Rajendra Punmiya had stated that the injuries found on

the body of the deceased could have been caused in a vehicular

accident. He further submitted that the recovery of the alleged

weapon (shovel) was itself doubtful, as P.W. 17 Jaswant Singh

Investigating Officer deposed that it was recovered from behind

the well, whereas P.W. 1 Hiralal contradicted this by stating that

the shovel was recovered from behind the room, thereby creating

a serious doubt regarding the alleged recovery. It was also pointed

out that the recovery witnesses, Chagan Lal (P.W. 10) and Hiralal

(P.W.1), had turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution's

case on the point of recovery.

15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that

key prosecution witnesses, namely P.W. 2 Vajaram and P.W. 3

Nenaram, as well as the brothers of the deceased, P.W. 13

Asharam and P.W. 14 Pakaram, and even the complainant

Nanaram (P.W. 4), had all turned hostile, thereby striking at the

root of the prosecution case.

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (6 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

16. Learned counsel further submitted that though the

deceased's children were said to be present in the house at the

time of the incident, no investigation whatsoever was conducted

by the Investigating Officer in this regard from them, depriving

the Court of potentially crucial evidence.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

accused-appellant Sokaram @ Chogaram was not present at the

scene of occurrence at the relevant time and had gone to Mewar

to hire labourers, a common practice among farmers who often

leave their families behind during such visits. According to the

learned counsel for the appellant, the accused came to know of

the incident only when the police informed him and thereafter

accompanied him to the spot.

18. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that no

witness has testified that it is the accused-appellant, who has

committed the alleged offence, and several prosecution witnesses,

including the alleged eyewitnesses and even the relatives of the

deceased, have turned hostile, thereby completely demolishing

the prosecution case. He further submitted that the documentary

evidence relied upon by the prosecution is fabricated and

unreliable, and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the

charges beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the

learned Trial Court are therefore, vague, perverse, contrary to

settled principles of law, and based on hearsay and

uncorroborated evidence. In view of the material contradictions,

hostile witnesses, and absence of credible evidence, learned

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (7 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned

judgment dated 06.02.2020 may be quashed and set aside.

19. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions

made by the counsel for the appellant and has supported the

prosecution case set out before the learned trial court and he

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

learned trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of

IPC vide judgment dated 06.02.2020.

20. We have considered the submissions made before this Court

and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case,

including the impugned judgment dated 06.02.2020.

21. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that on the basis of the

written report (Exhibit P-5) submitted by Nanaram, a First

Information Report (Exhibit P-6) was registered. In the FIR,

Nanaram stated that on 07.11.2014 his sister Sonki had

telephonically informed him that her husband, the accused

Sokaram @ Chogaram, had beaten her. He further stated that on

the same night, at about 10-11 PM, a quarrel took place between

Sonki and the accused, during which the accused severely

assaulted her, causing grievous injuries resulting in her death.

However, when the complainant Nanaram was examined as P.W.-

4, he turned hostile and denied the facts mentioned in the FIR,

including the information received from his sister and the alleged

quarrel. He denied having knowledge of the contents of Exhibit P-

5. Nonetheless, he admitted that his sister Sonki and the accused

Chogaram were engaged in agricultural work at Sadri and that he

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (8 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

had seen injuries on her head. He also admitted that Sonki and

the accused resided at the place of incident with their children.

22. Similarly, the deceased's brothers, P.W.-13 Asharam and

P.W.-14 Pakaram, also turned hostile. However, both witnesses

admitted that the deceased Sonki was living at the 'bera' with the

accused-appellant shortly before her death. P.W.-14 stated that he

had seen the dead body of his sister in a room at Muthana having

head injury and dried blood on her head. Though he denied who

caused the injuries to the deceased, but he admitted that Sonki

died due to a head injury. Thus, although the prosecution

witnesses turned hostile on several material aspects, but all three

brothers of the deceased consistently stated in their statements

that the accused Sokaram @ Chogaram was farming and residing

at the place of occurrence with the deceased and their children.

23. The most material witness in this case is P.W.-1 Hiralal. He

stated that a day before the deceased's body was discovered, he

had seen the accused beating, abusing and threatening his wife

Sonki at Otaram's Bera, saying, "I will kill her." He further stated

that though the accused calmed down after being persuaded, he

again quarreled with his wife at about 10-11 PM that night, and

the sounds of the quarrel continued for a long time before

suddenly ceasing. On the following day, at about 6 PM, when none

of the family members were seen and blood was noticed outside

the room, the body of Sonki was found lying inside the room. The

witness further stated that the accused-appellant was regularly

consuming alcohol and used to quarrel with his wife on a daily

basis. This testimony clearly establishes that the accused

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (9 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

had quarreled with and assaulted the deceased shortly

before her death and that the deceased was last seen alive

in the company of the accused-appellant.

24. P.W.-1 Hiralal also stated that upon hearing the sounds of

beating and shouting, he went at the place of occurrence along

with Khartingram and Chhaganlal. Although P.W.-9 Khartingram

turned hostile, he admitted that his 'bera' and Otaram's 'bera'

were close to each other, though he denied accompanying Hiralal.

His hostility does not affect the core of Hiralal's testimony, which

remained unshaken despite detailed cross-examination. Notably,

no animosity was suggested between P.W.-1 and the accused, nor

was it suggested that the accused was not present at the 'bera' on

the fateful day.

25. As regards the recovery, P.W.-17 Jaswant Singh, the

Investigating Officer, stated that after the arrest of the accused,

and on the basis of the information furnished by him under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a blood-stained iron shovel with a

wooden handle was recovered through memo Exhibit P-26 in the

presence of witnesses Hiralal and Chaganlal. This fact was

corroborated by P.W.-1 Hiralal, who stated that on 17.11.2014 the

accused led the police to the recovery of the said weapon from

behind a room at the 'bera'. Although P.W.-10 Chaganlal turned

hostile and denied the recovery in his presence, he admitted his

signatures on the recovery memo (Exhibit P-1), the sketch map

(Exhibit P-2), and the site verification report (Exhibit P-3). He did

not allege any coercion or pressure. Thus, the recovery of the

blood-stained weapon at the instance of the accused stands

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (10 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

duly proved. The argument of the learned counsel for the

accused-appellant that the description of the recovery site differs

from the sketch map is without substance thus, of no avail. Exhibit

P-3 makes it clear that the shovel was recovered from behind the

room, and minor differences in wording do not render the

recovery doubtful.

26. P.W.-17 Jaswant Singh further stated that the deceased

Sonki's blood-stained blouse (Exhibit P-22), as well as samples of

blood-stained soil (Exhibit P-23) and plain soil (Exhibit P-24), was

seized. Though P.W.-4 Nanaram and other witnesses denied

handing over the blouse or witnessing the seizure procedures,

they admitted their signatures on the memos. All seized articles

were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur, and the

FSL report (Exhibit P-27) confirms that human blood of group 'B'

was found on the shovel, blood-stained soil, and the blouse. This

scientific evidence further connects the accused to the

weapon used for commission of the offence.

27. Insofar as the plea of alibi raised by the accused-appellant

Chogaram in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is

concerned, wherein he claimed that he was not present at the

scene of occurrence and had gone to Mewar to hire labourers, it is

significant to note here that no evidence has been adduced by the

accused-appellant in support of his assertion. On the contrary, the

clear and consistent testimony of P.W.-1 Hiralal firmly

establishes the presence of the accused at the place of

incident shortly before the occurrence. Moreover, no

suggestion was put to this witness during cross-examination

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (11 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

indicating that the accused was elsewhere at the relevant time.

Consequently, the defence plea appears to be wholly untenable

and is liable to be rejected.

28. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, P.W.-5 Dr.

Rajendra Punamiya, who conducted the post-mortem examination

on the body of the deceased Sonki and prepared the post-mortem

report (Exhibit P-11), deposed that the deceased had sustained

the following injuries:-

(I) An incised wound on the left arm measuring 10 × 5 × 5 cm;

(II) An incised wound on the left fronto-parietal region measuring

10 × 5.5 cm, deep to the bone;

(III) An incised wound on the left parietal area measuring 6 × 5

cm, deep to the bone; and

(IV) An incised wound on the right elbow measuring 2 × 4 × 2

cm.

29. He opined that the cause of death was excessive bleeding

resulting from the injuries to the head and face. He further stated

the time of death was approximately 24 to 36 hours prior to the

post-mortem, which was conducted at 1:00 PM on 09.11.2014.

Thus, the medical evidence confirms that the death of Sonki

occurred between midnight of 07.11.2014 and 08.11.2014

due to bleeding.

30. As to the contentions regarding delay in lodging of the FIR

and not producing the daily diary report, the evidence shows that

the body was discovered at about 6 PM on 08.11.2014; the police

was informed accordingly; and the FIR was lodged in the next

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (12 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

morning. This delay is reasonably explained and does not in any

manner affect the prosecution case.

31. The legal position relating to the "last seen theory" is well

settled. In Dalip Malik Vs. State of West Bengal reported in

AIR 2017 SC 1133, it has been held that when the deceased was

last seen with the accused, the burden shifts on the accused to

explain the circumstances thereafter. In Satpal Vs. State of

Haryana reported in AIR 2018 SC 2142, the Supreme Court

held that though the last seen theory is a weak piece of evidence,

when coupled with other circumstances and the absence of

explanation by the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act,

it can form the basis of conviction. In the present case, the

deceased was last seen alive with the accused inside the room

situated at Otaram ka bera. The accused has offered no

explanation as to the circumstances in which Sonki sustained fatal

injuries. On the contrary, the prosecution has proved all relevant

circumstances through cogent and reliable evidence, forming a

complete chain leading to the only conclusion that the accused

committed the offence.

32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anees vs. The

State Govt. of NCT decided on 03.05.2024 reported in AIR

2024 SC 2297 in para No.57 and 58 has held as under:-

"57. In Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1979 SCC (Cri) 56, it was observed that where the evidence of the Investigating Officer who discovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to discovery need not be rejected on the ground that the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution version. Similar view was expressed in Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 9 SCC

362.

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (13 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

58. In Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657, it was further held:

10. ... even if Panch witness turn hostile which happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of the person who effected the recovery would not stand vitiated.

59. Even while discarding the evidence in the form of discovery panchnama, the conduct of the Appellant herein would be relevant Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as this Court observed in A.N. Venkatesh and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2005) 7 SCC 714:

9. By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the Accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the Accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct Under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the Accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (1979) 3 SCC 90. Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the Accused-Appellants (Ex. P-15 and P-16) is not admissible Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant Under Section 8. ..."

33. The Court also placed reliance upon the landmark judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.

State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein

the principles governing conviction on the basis of circumstantial

evidence were authoritatively laid down.

(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is

to be drawn must be fully established;

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (14 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

(ii) The facts so established must be consistent only with

the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and not

explainable on any other reasonable hypothesis;

(iii) The circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and

tendency;

(iv) They must exclude every possible hypothesis except

the one sought to be proved; and

(v) There must be a complete chain of evidence which

leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion

consistent with the innocence of the accused and

must show that, in all human probability, the act was

committed by the accused.

34. These principles form the guiding framework for

assessing the evidentiary value of the circumstances

proved in the present case.

35. Therefore, from the above discussion and analysis, it stands

proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 07.11.2014, at about

10-11 PM, at Otaram Chaudhary ka bera situated at Muthana, the

accused Shokaram @ Chhogaram intentionally inflicted multiple

injuries on his wife Sonki with a sharp-edged weapon (shovel),

causing her death.

36. 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.

37. In view of the aforesaid discussions and observations, we

find that the learned trial Court, looking to the circumstantial

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5125-DB] (15 of 15) [CRLAD-89/2020]

evidence of last seen of the accused appellant with the deceased,

has rightly convicted and sentenced him for the aforementioned

offences. Thus, we find no infirmity or perversity in the concurrent

findings of learned trial Court. Hence, impugned judgment dated

06.02.2020 is upheld.

38. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

39. Office is directed to send the record to the learned trial Court

forthwith.

(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal/ -

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:45:06 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)