[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendrasingh @ Mahendra vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:1138-Db) on 9 January, 2026

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:1138-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2026/2017

Mahendrasingh @ Mahendra S/o Kartar Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o
Shekhpura, P.s. Talvandi Sabo Distt. Bhatinda Punjab
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                        Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted
                                   by Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP.


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA Judgment

09/01/2026

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant

Mahendra singh S/o Shri Kartar singh, from jail against the

judgment dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Additional District and

Sessions Judge No. 02, Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No.

31/2015 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of

FIR No.214/2015, whereby the accused-appellant stands

convicted for the offence under Section 302, of the IPC.

2. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court has sentenced the

appellant to undergo imprisonment for life till the remainder of his

natural life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment

of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

3. Brief facts for deciding the present appeal are that the

complainant, Rajendra Kumar (PW-13) S/o Mangtu Ram, submitted a

written Complaint (Ex. P-22) to the Station House Officer, Police Station

Hanumangarh Junction, on 22.04.2015 at about 9:15 PM. In the written

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 05:14:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1138-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLA-2026/2017]

Complaint, he stated that he ordinarily resides at 2 K.N.G. Colony,

Makkasar, and is married to Maina Devi, daughter of Deceased -

Chetram, S/o Bhagirath, resident of village Rodawali. On 22.04.2015,

at around 5:00 PM, he had gone to his in-laws' house at Rodawali. His

father-in-law, Chetram, was not present at the house, and upon inquiry,

his mother-in-law informed him that Chetram had gone for work and

had not returned. At about 8:00 PM, one person came running to the

house and informed his mother-in-law, Parmeshwari Devi, that a man

wearing saffron clothes, resembling a sadhu, who had been residing in

the village for the past one and a half years, had assaulted Chetram on

head near the boundary wall of the cremation ground. On receiving this

information, he, along with his mother-in-law Parmeshwari Devi and

sister-in-law Pooja, rushed to the cremation ground, where a crowd had

already gathered. They saw the saffron-clad man striking Chetram on

the head with a cement-gravel pillar and thereafter covering his face

with mud. On noticing the presence of villagers, the assailant fled from

the spot. The complainant and the persons present witnessed the

condition of Chetram, who had succumbed to the head injury. The

assailant, dressed in saffron attire, had been residing in village Rodawali

for about one and a half years and was known to all villagers. The

complainant asserted that he could identify the accused if produced

before him.

4. On the basis of the above written complaint, a formal FIR

No.214/2015 (Exhibit P.25) was registered at Police Station,

Hanumangarh against the accused for the offences under Sections 302,

IPC.

5. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet

against the accused-appellant for the offences under section 302, IPC.

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 05:14:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1138-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLA-2026/2017]

6. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges

under Sections 302 IPC to the accused-appellant, who denied the

charge and sought trial.

7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 21

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

documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-57.

8. 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 due to

enmity, that the evidence was fabricated, and that he was innocent. The

accused-appellant produced documentary evidence, Exhibits D-01 to D-

03.

9. 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 07.11.2017.

10. Hence the present appeal.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the

prosecution case suffers from fundamental infirmities, which strike at

the very root of its credibility. It was argued that the First Information

Report (Ex. P.25), lodged by the complainant Rajendra Kumar, does not

disclose the name of the informant. The name "Shravan" was

subsequently introduced for the first time during the course of trial.

Likewise, no eyewitness has been named in the FIR. During

investigation, however, the complainant and the Investigating officer

allegedly colluded to falsely introduce Kanharam, Mahaveer, Shravan

and Sheetal as eyewitnesses.

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 05:14:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1138-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLA-2026/2017]

12. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submits that the

Defence Exhibits--Ex. D-1 (statement of Bhalaram), Ex. D-2 (statement

of Shravan), and Ex. D-3 (statement of Sheetal), recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C.--clearly demonstrate that if these individuals had

actually witnessed the alleged incident while travelling from

Hanumangarh to Rodawali on a motorcycle, they would have naturally

intervened or at the very least attempted to save the deceased,

Chetram. Their alleged conduct of proceeding directly to the village to

inform PW-5 Jaydev, instead of rendering any immediate assistance, is

wholly unnatural and inconsistent with normal human behaviour. Hence,

the testimonies of PW-8 Balaram, PW-11 Shravan, and PW-12 Sheetal

are inherently unreliable. Similarly, the prosecution's version that the

assault was still ongoing when the family members of the deceased

reached the spot upon receiving information is equally unbelievable and

contrary to natural probabilities. The improved statements of these

witnesses, wherein they subsequently claimed to have seen the

appellant Mahendra Singh striking the deceased with a cement pillar,

are wholly improbable and deserve to be discarded.

13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that there exist

material contradictions in the testimonies of the so-called eyewitnesses.

While some witnesses have stated that the appellant was hitting the

deceased on the face, others have alleged that he struck him on the

head with a pillar, and yet others state that the injuries were inflicted on

the chest and various parts of the body. Some witnesses even allege

that the appellant was throwing mud on the face of the deceased. These

glaring inconsistencies render the ocular evidence untrustworthy and

incapable of forming the basis of conviction.

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 05:14:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1138-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLA-2026/2017]

14. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the prosecution has

failed to establish any motive for the alleged offence. Even otherwise, if

the appellant had harboured any intention to commit murder, he would

have done so within the confines of the crematorium itself. No footprints

were collected from the scene of occurrence. Nor were any such

footprints compared with the slippers allegedly belonging to the

appellant

15. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the

identification parade conducted on 15.05.2015 is also unreliable. The

complainant Rajendra Kumar (PW-13), who later participated in the

identification, was admittedly present at the time of the alleged

recovery of the cement pillar and slippers on 25.04.2015 (Ex. P.7 and

P.8), which was conducted on the basis of the purported voluntary

statement of the appellant. Thus, the complainant had already seen the

appellant prior to the identification parade. The test identification

parade, therefore, loses all evidentiary value and cannot be read

against the appellant.

16. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submits that the

entries in the Malkhana Register (Ex. P.23) also cast serious doubt on

the integrity of the seized articles. The items were deposited between

23.04.2015 and 25.04.2015, whereas the entry dated 24.04.2015

appears to have been inserted subsequently, after leaving blank space.

This demonstrates deliberate manipulation and proves that the case

property was neither kept safely nor remained sealed, thereby vitiating

its evidentiary worth.

17. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the Forensic Science

Laboratory report (Ex. P.36) also does not mention the blood group of

the human blood allegedly found on the cement pillar and on the

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 05:14:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1138-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLA-2026/2017]

appellant's clothes. In the absence of blood group matching, it is not

proved that the bloodstains belong to the deceased Chetram. Thus, the

alleged recoveries and the FSL report fail to establish any nexus

between the appellant and the crime.

18. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that both the

direct and circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution stand

wholly discredited. Therefore, the appellant Mahendra Singh is entitled

to benefit of doubt and deserves to be honourably acquitted of the

charges levelled against him.

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 trial court and he submits that there is no infirmity in

the order passed by the learned trial court convicting the appellant

under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 07.11.2017.

20. We have considered the submissions made before this Court

and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case,

including the impugned order dated 07.11.2017.

21. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that the complainant,

Rajendra Kumar (PW-13), submitted the FIR (Ex. P-25) to the Station

House Officer at the spot within approximately one hour of the incident,

thereby affirming the prosecution's case that the complainant and the

police personnel reached the scene immediately after the fatal assault

on Chetram. The FIR records that the assailant was a saffron-clad man

resembling a sadhu, known in the village for many years, and that the

complainant could identify him again, which clearly indicates that

Rajendra Kumar saw the accused Mahendra Singh before he fled the

scene.

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 05:14:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1138-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLA-2026/2017]

22. The FIR further states that the complainant rushed to the site

along with his mother-in-law Parmeshwari (PW-6) and sister-in-law

Pooja (PW-7). Their testimonies before the learned Court below

consistently establish that all three reached the cremation ground

immediately upon receiving the information and witnessed the accused

striking the deceased with a cement pillar and thereafter throwing mud

upon him. PW-6 and PW-7 corroborated the complainant's version in all

material particulars, and both identified the accused-appellant. Given

that the distance between the deceased's house and the place of

occurrence was approximately one kilometer, their prompt arrival

cannot be doubted.

23. The fact that these witnesses belong to the same family does not,

in law, render their testimony unreliable, especially when their

statements are natural, consistent, and free from material

contradictions. Importantly, the defence did not confront any of these

witnesses with an allegation of enmity or motive for false implication,

nor did it produce any evidence to substantiate the vague plea of

animosity taken by the accused-appellant in his statement under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. On a holistic appreciation of the evidence, this Court

finds no reason to disbelieve the trustworthy and coherent testimonies

of PW-13, PW-6, and PW-7, which inspire confidence and fully support

the prosecution case.

24. Prosecution witnesses--Kanaram (PW-3), Bhairuram (PW-4),

Jaydev (PW-5), Bhalaram (PW-8), Shravan (PW-11), and Sheetal (PW-

12)--are natural and independent witnesses of the occurrence. Their

testimonies establish that they are laborers from Rodawali who

commute daily to Hanumangarh for marble installation work and return

to their village in the evening on motorcycles. Minor discrepancies in

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 05:14:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1138-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLA-2026/2017]

their statements regarding the specific motorcycles they rode or the

duration of their halt at Chuna Phatak or the bypass are

inconsequential, as such trivial variations are natural for ordinary

laborers and do not strike at the root of the prosecution case. What is

material is that all these witnesses have consistently deposed that while

passing near the Rodawali crematorium, they saw the accused

Mahendra Singh assaulting the deceased Chetram with a cement pillar.

Their conduct in proceeding to the bus stand and narrating the incident

to witness Jaydev (PW-5) appears both natural and probable. This was

immediately followed by Shravan (PW-11) rushing to inform the

deceased's family, which is duly corroborated by their testimonies.

Subsequently, Jaydev and the aforementioned laborers reached the

scene, and thereafter the complainant Rajendra Kumar, Parmeshwari,

and Pooja also arrived and saw the accused continuing the assault.

25. The argument that the witnesses described blows to different

parts of the body is rendered insignificant in light of the medical

evidence. The medical officer, Dr. Shankar Lal Soni (PW-20), and the

post-mortem report (Ex. P-50) conclusively establish severe injuries on

the head, face, and chest, fully corroborating the eyewitness account

that the accused delivered multiple blows with a heavy cement pillar.

The presence of mud on the deceased's face, as stated by the

witnesses, is also corroborated by the colour photographs proved by the

photographer Subhash. There is no evidence to suggest that any of

these laborer-witnesses, belonging to the Bhat community, bore any

animosity or had any motive to falsely implicate the accused. Even

Jaydev (PW-5), though of the same caste as the deceased, is not shown

to have had any vested interest or prior enmity with the accused. Their

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 05:14:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1138-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLA-2026/2017]

testimonies, therefore, carry the weight of independent and unbiased

evidence and cannot be discarded.

26. The Hon'ble Apex court in case of Sri Chikkegowda & Ors. Vs.

State Of Karnataka Etc. (2025 INSC 1213) it was held that:

23. It is well settled that if there is a conflict in the ocular testimony and the medical testimony/evidence, it is the ocular evidence which will prevail unless found to be totally unreliable. In this regard, reference may be made to the followings decision wherein the above principle was reiterated:

23.1. In the judgment of Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, it was held that:

"10. So far as the question of inconsistency between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-

à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved..."

23.2. In the judgment of State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, it was held that:

"13. ...In any event unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence it has primacy."

23.3. In the judgement of Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala & Ors, it was held that:

"17. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it..."

23.4. In the aforesaid decisions, this Court has consistently accorded greater weight to ocular testimony than to the opinion of medical experts, and the same principle governs the case before us.

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 05:14:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1138-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLA-2026/2017]

26. The prosecution has also presented strong circumstantial

evidence in addition to direct eyewitness testimony. The accused

Mahendra Singh was arrested the day after the incident, and while

in custody he voluntarily furnished information under Section 27

of the Evidence Act, leading to the recovery of the cement pillar

used in the offence (Ex. P-28) from a pit within the crematorium

grounds and a pair of slippers (Ex. P-29). The recovery memos,

duly proved by the investigating officer, inspire confidence and

further reinforce the prosecution case.

27. In view of the consistent and reliable testimony of