[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tar Singh And Ors vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:1855-Db) on 13 January, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 447/1987
Lal Chand S/o Shri Piru Ram by caste Sonar, R/o Anoopgarh,
Tehsil Sangaria, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 455/1987
1. Roop Singh S/o Jogendra Singh, By caste Jat Sikh, R/o
Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Abated).
2. Tar Singh S/o Harnek Singh By caste Majbi, R/o Guru K, P.S.
Sangat Mandi, District Bhatinda (Punjab).
3. Janta Singh S/o Shyam Singh @ Fauji, By caste Majbi, R/o
Haripura, District Sri Ganganagar. (Abated).
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Ms. Anjali Kaushik &
Mr. Harvardhan Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
13/01/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor on the basis of
report dated 01.08.2025 sent by SHO police station Sangariya
District Hanumangarh submits that out of the aforesaid accused
appellants, Roop Singh S/o Jogendra Singh and Janta Singh S/o
Shyam Singh @ Fauji have passed away.
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (2 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987]
3. The report dated 01.08.2025 is taken on record and the
appeals against the appellants Roop Singh S/o Jogendra Singh and
Janta Singh S/o Shyam Singh @ Fauji stand abated.
4. Heard the appeals of the accused appellants- Tar Singh and
Lal Chand.
5. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment
dated 30.10.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.1 Hanumangarh (Camp Sangariya) in Sessions Case
No.61/1985, therefore, the same are being decided by this
common order.
6. Briefly noted the facts in the instant appeals are that on the
basis of statement (parcha bayan) dated 18.03.1985 (Ex.12)
submitted by PW-8 (Gurdas Ram), the FIR (Ex.13) was lodged at
Police Station Sangariya on 18.03.1985 at 8 am. In the statement
(parcha bayan), the PW-8- Gurdas Ram stated that he is running a
grocery shop at Haripura. He stated that his younger brother
Bheem Chand was residing along with his family at Abohar. A day
before the incident, his brother Bheem Chand came to meet him
at Haripura and when PW-8-Gurdas Ram was sleeping in the shop
whereas his brother Bheem Chand was sleeping behind the Kotha
of shop, then at the midnight, he heard a noise of gun shot as well
as noise of his brother Bheem Chand that 'Maar Dia Maar Dia'.
When he opened the door and lit the torch, then he saw the
persons of his village namely Janta Singh S/o Shyam Singh @
Fauji and Roop Singh S/o Jogendra Singh and two other persons
to whom he can identify. It was further stated that as soon as he
seen them, the aforesaid persons fled away by opening the door.
He further stated that he found his brother Bheem Chand on the
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (3 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987]
floor and in some time he died. He further submitted that from the
left side of the chest of his brother Bheem Chand the blood was
oozing and when he shouted, then Daulat Ram and Darshan Singh
came on the site. Thus, ultimately it was sated that his brother
Bheem Chand was killed by Janta Singh S/o Shyam Singh and
Roop Singh S/o Jodengra Singh and two other persons by inflicting
fire arm injury.
7. After lodging of the FIR, the Investigating Agency recovered
certain articles from the place of incident and the same were
exhibited. After completion of the investigation, the investigating
agency submitted chargesheet against the accused Roop Singh for
the offences under Sections 460 and 302 of the IPC and under
Section 27 of the Arms Act and against Janta Singh, Tar Singh and
Lal Chand for the offence under Sections 460 and 302/34 of the
IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed the charges against
the aforesaid accused persons for the offence aforesaid and they
claimed trial.
8. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12
witnesses and got exhibited 37 exhibits.
9. The statement of accused appellants under Section 313 CrPC
were also recorded wherein, they have stated that they have
falsely been implicated int the present case. In support of their
defence, they have also examined DW1-Vipin Sethi.
10. Thereafter, learned trial court framed as many as 5
issues/points for determination and ultimately vide judgment
dated 30.10.1987 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants
for the offences aforesaid. Hence, the present appeals.
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (4 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987]
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants vehemently
submits that the present appellants have been falsely implicated
in the present case as there is no iota of evidence by which the
present appellants can be said to have been involved in the
present incident. He further submits that in the statement of PW-8
(Gurdas Ram) exhibited as Exhibit 12, the names of the present
appellants- Tar Singh and Lal Chand had not been mentioned. He
also submits that the names of the present appellants have been
subsequently introduced by way of an improvement in the
statement.
12. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per the
statement of PW-8, he has seen Tar Singh and Lal Chand when
they visited his shop during course of the day for purchasing
beedis along with two other persons namely Roop Singh and Janta
Singh. He further submits that while the four persons visited the
shop of Gurdas Ram, they were taking the names of the present
appellants, therefore, he could recognize them while they were
fleeing from the place of incident.
13. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that if PW-8 (Gurdas
Ram) had seen the present appellants then he could recognize
them by their names then why their names were not mentioned in
the statement Ex.12. He further submits that the explanation
given for not submitting their names in the statement Ex.12 is not
palatable and introducing their names in the subsequent
statement is nothing but over implication of the appellants in the
present case. He also submits that even if the statement of PW-8
is taken on its face value, then he has stated in his cross-
examination that after hearing the noise of the gun shot and yelp
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (5 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987]
of the deceased Bheem Chand, he opened the gate and went to
Kotha along with a torch and in the light of the torch, he has seen
the four accused persons leaving the place of incident.
14. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that once the PW-8
(Gurdas Ram) has seen the four persons leaving the place of
incident in the light of torch, then certainly he was unable to see
their faces as it has come in the statement that their faces were
towards the gate. He also submits that as per the statement given
by PW-8 (Gurdas Ram), it is impossible to recognize a person
while he is fleeing from the spot by looking at his back. He further
submits that PW-8 (Gurdas Ram) has tried to improve his version
in the subsequent statements by implicating the present
appellants in the present case.
15. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that there is no other
evidence available on record, which is cogent, convincing and
worth credible to assume that the present appellants were present
at the time of incident except the statement of PW-8 (Gurdas
Ram). He further submits that despite the fact that Gurudas Ram
in his statement Ex.12 has mentioned that the two other persons
can be recognized by him, if they are brought before him, despite
this statement, the Test Identification Parade of the present
appellants was not conducted. He further submits that even the
independent witness PW-2 to PW-7 have not supported the
prosecution case as they have been declared hostile.
16. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that as far as the
evidence of foot mould is concerned, the learned Trial Court has
also taken note of it and discarded the same. He further submits
that except mere presence of the appellants, no overt act has
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (6 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987]
been attributed to the present appellants and a single gun shot
injury was attributed to Roop Singh, who has passed away during
pendency of the present appeals. He, therefore, prays that the
present appeals may be allowed and the judgment dated
30.10.1987 may be quashed and set aside.
17. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the
judgment dated 30.10.1987 submits that the testimony of PW-8
(Gurdas Ram), who is the solitary eye witness, is worth credence
and is only reliable. He further submits that in the Ex.12 as well as
the statements recorded by the Police before the learned Trial
Court, it is maintained by PW-8 (Gurdas Ram) that the two other
persons, who fled from the spot were none other than Tar Singh
and Lal Chand, however, learned Public Prosecutor very fairly
submits that no overt act has been attributed to the present
appellants.
18. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that there is ample
evidence against the present appellants to prove that the
allegations levelled in the present case by the prosecution and the
judgment was passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer
from any illegality. He, therefore, prays that the appeals may be
dismissed.
19. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and
have gone through the relevant record of the case including the
impugned judgment dated 30.10.1987.
20. It is noted that the statement given by PW-8 (Gurdas Ram)
to the Police on 18.03.1985 clearly shows that his brother Bheem
Chand visited his shop and while he was sleeping in Kotha, Janta
Singh and Roop Singh along with two other persons trespassed
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (7 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987]
into his Kotha and fired a gun shot upon his brother. After hearing
the noise of the gun shot and yelp of Bheem Chand, he opened
the gate and saw in the light of torch that four persons running
away from the place of incident. In the light of the torch, he could
recognize Janta Singh and Roop Singh, however, he failed to name
the two other persons i.e. the present appellants. As per the post
mortem report, there is only a single fire arm injury, which is a
cause of his brother's death. PW-8 (Gurdas Ram), in his
statement, has stated that while his brother was sleeping in
Kotha, on hearing the gun shot, he opened the door and saw in
the light of torch that Janta Singh and Roop Singh were fleeing
from the place of incident and in his statement, he also stated that
two other persons fleeing from the place of incident were the
present appellants- Tar Sing and Lal Chand. The names of those
two persons are conspicuously missing in the Ex.12 more
particularly, when he has authoritatively stated in his statement
that all the four persons visited his shop during the course of day
while they were talking to each other, he could hear the names of
the present appellants.
21. It is highly improbable that if somebody knows the names of
the persons to whom he has seen during the course of day, he
could not recognize them and despite that he fails to name them
while giving the statement before the Police after the incident. The
explanation for not mentioning the names of the present
appellants to the Police is not believable. In the considered opinion
of this Court, the introduction of the two names of the present
appellants in the subsequent statements is nothing but an
improvisation of the earlier statement in order to falsely implicate
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (8 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987]
the present appellants. In the statement of PW-8 (Gurdas Ram),
he also stated that while they were leaving the spot, he has seen
the four persons leaving and categorically mentioned that while
they were fleeing the place of incident, he has seen the back of all
the four persons, therefore, if a person has not seen the person
who is fleeing the spot by their face, then it is highly improbable
that he could recognize them while they are fleeing the spot by
looking their back more particularly in the light of torch.
22. Further the prosecution failed to get the Test Identification
Parade of the present appellants despite the fact that the
complainant has mentioned in the Ex.12 that he could recognize
the present appellants, if they are brought before him. In the
statement of PW-8, he has categorically mentioned that fire arm
injury was attributed to Janta Singh and Roop Singh, who during
the pendency of the present appeals have passed away. In any
case, no overt act has been reported against the present
appellants. The other evidence in the form of foot mould taken by
the prosecution has been discarded by the learned Trial Court. The
post mortem report also shows the cause of death to be a single
fire arm injury. PW-3 Daulat Ram and PW-5 Darshan Singh, who
as per the statement of PW-8 were called at the place of incident
by Gurudas Ram have not supported the prosecution case and
they have declared hostile.
23. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no material
evidence to implicate the present appellants in the present case
and, therefore, we are of the view that the judgment dated
30.10.1987 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Hanumangarh (Camp Sangariya) of convicting the present
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (9 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987]
appellants- Lal Chand and Tar Singh is not correct. Consequently,
the present appeals of the accused appellants- Lal Chand and Tar
Singh merit acceptance and the same are allowed and the
judgment dated 30.10.1987 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.1, Hanumangarh (Camp Sangariya) is quashed and set-
aside qua the present appellants. The appellants- Lal Chand and
Tar Singh are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
24. Since the accused-appellants are on bail, therefore, they
need not surrender before the Jail authorities, if they are not
required in any other case. Their bail bonds are discharged.
25. Record be sent back to the learned trial Court forthwith.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
120-121-SunilS/Shahenshah/-
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
