[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Nanu on 20 January, 2026

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR


                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 348/1999

State of Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                      Versus
Nanu S/o Shri Shanker, resident of Thikariya, District Banswara
                                                                   ----Respondent



For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. S.S. Rathore, PP
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Kamlesh Rawal



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

                                   Judgment



     1.    Date of conclusion of argument                    13.01.2026
     2.    Date on which the judgment was 13.01.2026
           reserved
     3.    Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
           operative part is pronounced
     4.    Date of Pronouncement                             .......01.2026



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

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by appellant- State

under Section 378 (i) & (iii) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure,

1973 against accused-respondent Nanu S/o Shri Hari Shankar,

challenging the judgment dated 16.02.1999 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No. 110/1996 arising

out of FIR No.65/96,lodged at police station Lohariya, Banswara

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 10:37:36 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB] (2 of 13) [CRLA-348/1999]

whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the

offences punishable under Sections 302 & 450 of the IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case on 06.03.1996, one Shri Hatu

(PW-02) submitted a verbal report (Ex.P-2) at Police Station

Lohariya stating that on the previous evening, at about 4:00 PM,

his wife, Smt. Dev Kanwar, was preparing tea at their home, while

he was sitting at the Padsal. The Adivashi villagers were playing

Holi- Ger at Holi Chowk in the village. At that time, Nanu, S/o

Shanker, came there with an unsheathed sword in his hand,

started abusing, and said, "रांड, आज तुझे जान से खत्म करता हूँ , तू सभी

को डराती है ." Thereafter, he entered in the house and inflicted a

sword blow on the abdomen of Dev Kanwar with the intention to

kill her. On withdrawing the sword, her intestines protruded. Upon

hearing her cries, Ramu, Rameng, and other villagers reached at

the spot and caught hold the accused-respondent. Dev Kanwar

was taken to the hospital for treatment. During the course of

treatment, Dev Kanwar succumbed to her injuries.

3. On the basis of the above verbal report, a formal FIR No.

65/96 (Exhibit P.03) was registered at Police Station, Lohariya,

Banswara against the accused for the offences under Sections

307, 452, 326, and 504 IPC. During the course of investigation,

Dev Kanwar succumbed to her injuries accordingly; the offence

under Section 302 IPC was added.

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

under Sections 302, 450, and 504 IPC against the accused-

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 10:37:36 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB] (3 of 13) [CRLA-348/1999]

respondent before the concerned court where from the case was

committed to the sessions court.

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

charges under Sections 302 & 450 IPC to the accused-

respondent, who denied the charge and sought for trial.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 09

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

documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-16.

7. The statement of the accused-respondent was recorded

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating

circumstances put to him, stating that the prosecution witnesses

had deposed falsely, that the evidence was fabricated, and that he

was innocent. The accused-respondent did not lead any defence

evidence, and the defence evidence was accordingly closed.

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, acquitted the accused-

respondent as aforesaid vide judgment dated 16.02.1999.

9. Being aggrieved against the order of acquittal dated

16.02.1999, the State - appellant preferred the present appeal.

10. Learned Public Prosecution appearing for the appellant-State

submitted that the learned trial court has committed grave

illegality and perversity in acquitting the accused-respondent of

the charges levelled against him. The impugned judgment is

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 10:37:36 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB] (4 of 13) [CRLA-348/1999]

contrary to law, unsupported by evidence, and deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

11. He further submitted that the learned trial court has erred in

law and on facts in disbelieving the prosecution story without

properly appreciating the evidence brought on record. The

judgment thus, suffers from lack of cogent reasoning and reflects

non-application of judicial mind, rendering the acquittal

unsustainable.

12. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of

PW-2 Hatu, the husband of the deceased and an eye-witness, has

been unjustifiably discarded. PW-2 has categorically stated that

the accused - respondent entered the house and inflicted a sword

blow on the abdomen of his wife. His testimony is duly

corroborated by PW-7 Dr. Lal Chand and PW-9 Dr. Devpriya.

However, the learned trial court failed to appreciate these vital and

consistent testimonies and recorded acquittal in a manner

perverse to the material available on record.

13. He further submitted that the deceased, Smt. Dev Kanwar,

succumbed during treatment due to infection, which developed as

a direct consequence of the sword injury inflicted by the accused-

respondent. The medical evidence clearly establishes that the

injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death. Despite this, the learned trial court erroneously discarded

the medical evidence, which is wholly unjustified.

14. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned

judgment is neither speaking nor reasoned one. The learned trial

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 10:37:36 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB] (5 of 13) [CRLA-348/1999]

court has failed to properly analyse and discuss the prosecution

evidence and has passed the judgment in a casual and superficial

manner in a case involving heinous offence of murder. The

prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable

doubt, yet the learned trial court has taken an unjust and contrary

view.

15.Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned

trial court has wrongly concluded that Dev Kanwar died after

getting cured from her injuries due to infection, ignoring the

crucial fact that the infection itself arose due to the grievous

sword injury caused by the accused-respondent. This vital aspect

has been overlooked, and the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses has been brushed aside without lawful justification.

16. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the

present appeal may be allowed and the judgment of acquittal

passed by the learned trial court be set aside and the accused-

respondent be convicted for the offences proved against him.

17. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent has opposed

the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and has

supported the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Banswara, and he submitted that there is no infirmity in the

judgment passed by the learned trial court while acquitting the

accused-respondent from the offences under Sections 302 & 450

IPC vide judgment dated 16.02.1999.

18. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent submitted that

it is the cardinal principle of law that even if two views are

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 10:37:36 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB] (6 of 13) [CRLA-348/1999]

possible and the learned trial court found the other view to be

more probable, an interference would not have been warranted by

the appellate court, unless the view taken by the learned trial

court was a perverse or impossible view. Learned counsel for the

accused-respondent submitted that while passing the impugned

judgment, the learned trial court has not committed any

perversity and the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the

learned trial court does not call for any interference.

19. We have considered the submissions made before this Court

and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case,

including the impugned judgment dated 16.02.1999.

20. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that PW-2 Hatu, the

husband of the deceased, stated that several persons were

present at the place of occurrence. The deceased, in her police

statement, also mentioned the presence of PW-1 Ramu, PW-4

Nana, PW-6 Vela, and PW-3 Rameng at the place of occurrence,

however, a perusal of the statements of above four witnesses, it is

revealed that none of above four eyewitnesses have stated that

the accused-respondent inflicted the sword injury upon the

deceased, Smt. Dev Kanwar. Their testimonies do not corroborate

the version put-forth by PW-2 Hatu, thereby creating doubt

regarding the prosecution story.

21. PW-9 Dr. Dev Priya Ashok Panda stated that the deceased

remained hospitalized for nearly one month due to the injuries

sustained and ultimately died due to an internal abdominal

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 10:37:36 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB] (7 of 13) [CRLA-348/1999]

infection. According to him, the external injuries had healed by the

time of her death.

22. PW-8 Nathu Singh- the Investigating Officer in his statement

stated that on the basis of the information furnished by the

accused-respondent, a blood-stained sword was recovered vide

Fard Bardamagi (Ex.P-9) from the house of accused-respondent in

the presence of PW-5 Bhopal Singh and one Hiralal. However, PW-

5 Bhopal Singh has not supported the prosecution version, and

Hiralal, the other attesting witness, was not produced before the

Court. Therefore, the alleged recovery of the sword cannot be held

to be duly proved merely on the basis of the statement of the

Investigating Officer-PW-8 Nathu Singh. Further, as per the

serologist's report (Ex.P-15), the blood group on the seized

articles, including the clothes, kurta, and sword, could not be

determined. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish

that the sword recovered was the weapon used for commission of

crime.

23. From the testimony of PW-2 Hatu, the husband of the

deceased, it emerges that on the day of Dhulendi, at about 5:00

PM, he was sitting in the courtyard of his house while his wife,

Smt. Dev Kunwar, was preparing tea. The Holi celebration was

taking place in front of his house where people were playing Holi-

Ger. According to him, the accused Nanu, who is his nephew, was

present there with a naked sword in his hand. When his wife came

out to give him tea, the accused allegedly abused her and said,

"रांड, आज तुझे जान से खत्म करता हूँ , तू सभी को डराती है ." and then he

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 10:37:36 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB] (8 of 13) [CRLA-348/1999]

thrusted the sword into her abdomen, causing her intestines to

protrude. He further stated that many people gathered at the spot

and apprehended the accused. The Dev Kanwar was taken to the

hospital where she remained under treatment for nearly one

month and subsequently died. The witness denied the suggestion

in cross-examination that the injury was accidental or that the

accused was falsely implicated due to a land dispute.

24. PW-2 Hatu, being the husband of the deceased, is an

interested witness, and in the absence of corroboration from other

eyewitnesses, it would not be safe to rely solely on his testimony.

A perusal of the statements of the witnesses this Court found that

even PW-2 neither attempted to intervene nor raised any alarm at

the spot, further weakening the credibility of his version.

25. The prosecution relied heavily upon the statement of

deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC (Ex.P-16), wherein she

named PW-1 Ramu, PW-4 Nana, PW-6 Vela and PW-3 Ramaing as

persons, who reached at the place of occurrence. However, all

these witnesses, when examined before the Court, stated that

they did not see the accused inflicting any sword injury on the

deceased and claimed ignorance about the cause of death. These

witnesses were declared hostile. They also stated in their cross-

examination that their police statements, (Exhibits P-1, P-7, P-8

and P-11), did not contain any mention of the accused-respondent

causing injuries to the deceased. Consequently, their testimonies

do not corroborate the version of PW-2 Hatu.

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 10:37:36 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB] (9 of 13) [CRLA-348/1999]

26. PW-8 Nathu Singh, ASI, stated that he registered the FIR on

the basis of the verbal report (Ex.P-2), inspected the site and

prepared the site inspection report (Ex.P-4) and inquest report

(Ex.P-6). He further deposed that the deceased's clothes were

seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5) and that the accused was

arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P-12). The accused allegedly gave

information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P-13),

pursuant to which a sword was recovered from his house, as

shown in the recovery memo (Ex.P-9). However, the witness PW-5

Bhopal Singh, an attesting witness to the recovery memo, did not

support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. He

admitted his signature on the memo, but denied witnessing the

recovery. The other attesting witness, Hiralal, was not produced

before the Court. Thus, the alleged recovery of the sword remains

uncorroborated and cannot be relied upon solely on the unverified

statement of the investigating officer. Even assuming for the sake

of arguments that the sword was recovered from the accused-

respondent and contained bloodstains, the serologist's report

(Ex.P-15) shows that although human blood was present on the

deceased's garments and on the sword, but the blood group could

not be matched. Accordingly, it is not proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the blood found on the sword belonged to the

deceased, nor is the sword conclusively connected with the crime.

27. With respect to the medical evidence, PW-7 Dr. Lalchand

Maida proved the injury report (Ex.P-12). PW-9 Dr. Dev Priya

Ashok Panda, who conducted the post-mortem (Ex.P-16), opined

that the cause of death was perforation of intestines and

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 10:37:36 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB] (10 of 13) [CRLA-348/1999]

gallbladder caused by a sharp weapon and that such injury was

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

However, in cross-examination he admitted that the deceased

remained admitted in hospital for about one month and ultimately,

died during treatment due to an internal abdominal infection. He

further stated that the external wounds had healed, stitches had

been removed, and that abdominal infection can arise from

numerous causes, including hospital-acquired infection. He

clarified that the deceased could have died from an infection

unrelated to the injury. This creates a definite doubt about

whether the death was the direct result of the injury allegedly

inflicted by the accused-respondent or not. Thus, the medical

evidence, instead of conclusively supporting the prosecution,

introduces uncertainty regarding the cause of death, weakening

the prosecution's case on the essential link between the injury and

the eventual demise of the deceased.

28. Additionally, the presence of close relatives at the scene of

occurrence becomes doubtful if they neither intervene nor raise an

alarm to save the deceased and even during trial, they have been

declared hostile. In the present case, PW-2 Hatu is the sole

eyewitness, closely related to the deceased. He has not stated

anywhere in his testimony that he attempted to prevent the

assault or raised an alarm. This conduct casts a cloud of suspicion

over his presence and reliability.

29. This Court is of the firm view that looking to overall facts and

circumstances of the case, the learned trial court has not

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 10:37:36 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB] (11 of 13) [CRLA-348/1999]

committed any illegality while acquitting the accused-respondent

from the charges levelled against him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Ballu & Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh,

reported in 2024 (260) AIC 204 has held that in any case, even

if two views are possible and trial Judge found the other view to

be more probable, and interference would not have been

warranted by High Court, unless the view taken by learned trial

Judge was perverse or impossible view.

30. In the case of Ballu and Ors. vs. The State of Madhya

Pradesh decided on 02.04.2024 reported in 2024 (260) AIC 204,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

8. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is.

An Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below:

13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0236/2016MANU/SC/0236/2016 :

(2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:

In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 10:37:36 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2727-DB] (12 of 13) [CRLA-348/1999]

perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the Accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded.

14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0456/2016MANU/SC/0456/2016 :

(2016) 12 SCC 665, the Supreme Court has held that:

No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after re- appreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the Accused.

20. The High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible. As already discussed hereinbefore, no perversity or impossibility could be found in the approach adopted by the learned Trial Judge."