[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish @ Jagga Ram vs State on 24 March, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 941/2016
Jagdish @ Jagga Ram S/O Raghunath Ram R/o Village
Baniyawas, Police Station Luni, District Jodhpur
(Presently locked in Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Adv.with
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary &
Ms. Sampati Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. 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 19.03.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was 19.03.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
operative part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 24/03/2026
1. The instant D.B. Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
accused-appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated
30.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.
6, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned
trial court") in Sessions Case No. 20/2013 (NCV No. 672/14),
whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the
accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act as
follows:-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (2 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
302 IPC Life imprisonment with a fine In default of payment of
of Rs. 10,000/- fine to further undergo
Three Month's SI
3/25 of 3 years' simple imprisonment In default of payment of
Arms with a fine of Rs. 500/- fine to further undergo 15
Act Day's SI
Both the substantive
sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 09.08.2012, P.W.1 Mohan Lal
submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) at Police Station Luni alleging,
inter alia, that on the said date at about 4:00 PM, he was present
at the house of his uncle-Girdhari Ram, along with Dungar Ram,
Gopa Ram, Chamu Devi, Samli Devi and Sayari @ Shanti. At that
time, his mother Dakhu Devi and the mother of Dungar Ram,
namely Chandu Devi, were returning from the field. Suddenly,
they heard cries "ekjs js, ekjs js", whereupon the complainant along
with Dungar Ram, Gopa Ram and the aforesaid women rushed
towards the direction of the noise. Upon reaching there, they saw
that accused Jagdish, armed with a gun was quarrelling with
Dakhu Devi and Chandu Devi. When Dungar Ram and Gopa Ram
attempted to intervene, Jagdish fired at them, as a result of
which, both of them sustained gunshot injuries and fell down.
Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot. The complainant
immediately informed the 108 Ambulance service and also
conveyed the information to Police Station Luni. Subsequently,
both the injured persons were taken to the hospital, where they
were declared dead.
3. On the basis of the said written report (Ex.P.1), a formal FIR
bearing C.R. Case No.100/2012 was registered at Police Station
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (3 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
Luni, District Jodhpur for the offence under Section 302 IPC and
investigation was commenced.
4. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-
sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under
Sections 302 and 352 IPC and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act
before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4,
Jodhpur Metropolitan, from where the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, and subsequently transferred to
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jodhpur
Metropolitan for trial.
5. The learned trial court, after hearing arguments on charge,
framed, read over and explained the charges under Sections 302
IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act to the accused-appellant,
who denied the same and claimed trial.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 28 witnesses, exhibited documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.51, and
also produced 14 articles in support of its case; whereafter the
prosecution evidence was closed.
7. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the allegations, claimed
false implication due to ulterior motives, and asserted his
innocence. No evidence in defence was led by the accused-
appellant.
8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jodhpur
Metropolitan, after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides
and upon appreciation of the evidence available on record,
convicted the accused-appellant for the offences under Section
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (4 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him vide
judgment/order dated 30.09.2016, as mentioned hereinabove.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment/order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the learned trial
court, the accused-appellant has preferred the present appeal
before this Hon'ble Court.
10. Learned senior counsel Mr. Jagmal Singh Chaudhary
appearing for the accused-appellant submitted that the findings
recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jodhpur
Metropolitan are contrary to law as well as the material available
on record and, therefore, the same deserve to be quashed and set
aside.
11. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the learned
trial court has acted illegally in convicting and sentencing the
accused-appellant for the offences under Section 302 IPC and
Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, as there is no reliable or cogent
evidence available on record to sustain such conviction.
12. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per the
prosecution case itself, upon receiving information, P.W.26 Sita
Ram (ASI) reached the place of occurrence; however, no report
was lodged by him and no entry was made in the roznamcha with
regard to the alleged incident. This omission renders the
prosecution case wholly doubtful from its inception. He further
pointed out that P.W.26 admitted in his cross-examination that
there was no order from the concerned S.H.O. to record
statements and that no weapon was found at the place of
occurrence. He also submitted that although P.W.26 was not the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (5 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
Investigating Officer, he recorded statements, thereby rendering
the prosecution story doubtful and unreliable.
13. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is no
corroboration in the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses,
namely P.W.2 Dakhu Devi, P.W.3 Chandu Devi, P.W.8 Somli Devi,
P.W.9 Sayari @ Shanti, P.W.10 Chamu Devi, P.W.11 Pappu Devi
and P.W.19 Kana Ram. He also submitted that P.W.2 Dakhu Devi
admitted in her cross-examination that the scuffle arose due to
dispute over agricultural land and that prior to the incident there
was no enmity between the parties, thereby making the alleged
motive doubtful.
14. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that P.W.3 Chandu
Devi admitted that material facts were not stated in her statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., particularly regarding the
allegation of dragging the dead bodies and as such it is apparent
that there is material improvements in her testimony. He further
submitted that P.W.8 Somli Devi, in her examination-in-chief
stated that she is an eye witness of the incident but in her cross-
examination she admitted that she did not actually witness the
firing as she was inside the house, rendering her testimony
unreliable.
15. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that P.W.11 Pappu Devi
made contradictory statements. She initially claimed herself to be
the witness of the entire incident, but later on she admitted that
the firing had already taken place before she came at the place of
occurrence, thereby casting serious doubt on her credibility. He
further submitted that P.W.19 Kana Ram did not support the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (6 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
prosecution case and was declared hostile. It was thus submitted
that even if it is assumed that the above witnesses were present
at the place of occurrence, then too, on account of material
contradictions and inconsistencies in their testimonies, the
prosecution story has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
16. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that P.W.17 Bhikha Ram
and P.W.18 Bhana Ram, in their cross-examination, categorically
stated that at the time of the alleged incident at village
Baniyawas, the accused-appellant Jagga Ram was not present at
the place of occurrence and was in the field with his wife. He
further submitted that the learned trial court erred in discarding
this evidence merely on the ground that the plea of alibi was
taken in defence, ignoring that the Court is duty-bound to
consider all material evidence on record.
17. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there exists a
material contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence.
While the alleged eye-witnesses stated that the firing was done
from a distance of 4-5 feets, P.W.28 Dr. Deendayal Meena
admitted in his cross-examination that the possibility of firing from
a distance of 40-50 feets could not be ruled out, thereby creating
serious doubt in the prosecution case.
18. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the recovery
of the alleged weapon is doubtful. Referring to the testimony of
P.W.13 Shakti Singh, he submitted that no written notice (tehrir)
was issued to P.W.13 for becoming a witness, and he admitted
that no information was furnished by the accused-appellant in his
presence at the police station. He further pointed out that the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (7 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
independent witness Chokha Ram was not examined, and thus,
the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the weapon at
the instance of the accused-appellant.
19. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that learned trial court
has erred in not properly appreciating the defence version, which,
according to the learned Senior Counsel, is more probable than
the prosecution story. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted
that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses, and no reliance can be
placed on such evidence for sustaining conviction. Learned Senior
Counsel emphasized that it is a settled principle of law that the
prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt;
however, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to do so
and therefore, the conviction is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
20. Lastly, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned
trial court has not properly examined the prosecution evidence in
the light of material available on record and has based the
conviction on surmises and conjectures rather than on sound
principles of law.
21. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Shrawan Singh
Rathore has opposed the submissions made by the Learned Senior
Counsel appearing 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-appellant for the offence
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section
3/25 of the Arms Act vide its judgment dated 30.09.2016.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (8 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
22. Having heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant-
accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and upon
a thorough and meticulous re-appreciation of the entire evidence
available on record, including the impugned judgment dated
30.09.2016, this Court proceeds to examine the correctness,
legality, and propriety of the findings recorded by learned trial
court.
23. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that the written report
(Exhibit P-1) submitted by the complainant Mohanlal (PW-1), who,
in his sworn testimony, has given a detailed, natural, and
consistent account of the incident. He deposed that on 09.08.2012
at about 4:00 PM, while he along with several family members
was present at the house, his mother Dakhu Devi and elder
mother Chandu Devi were returning from the fields when the
accused Jagdish @ Jaggaram, armed with a gun, chased them and
threatened them. Upon hearing their cries, the complainant and
others rushed outside and witnessed the accused-appellant
pursuing them. When Gopa Ram and Dungar Ram intervened to
protect the women, the accused-appellant fired a gunshot at
them, as a result of which, both sustained pellet injuries and
collapsed on the spot. The witness further stated that the
accused-appellant attempted to drag the injured, but the women
intervened, and thereafter, the police and ambulance were called.
The FIR was promptly lodged, and his presence at the scene has
remained unshaken, despite lengthy cross-examination.
24. The testimony of Mohanlal (PW-1) finds substantial
corroboration from the eyewitness Dakhu Devi (PW-2), who stated
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (9 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
that while returning from the fields along with Chandu Devi (PW-
3), the accused-appellant intercepted them with a gun and
blocked their path, causing her to raise alarm. On hearing her
cries, Gopa Ram and Dungar Ram rushed towards them,
whereupon the accused fired at them, causing fatal injuries. She
consistently maintained that the accused-appellant was the
assailant and denied all suggestions to the contrary. Similarly,
chandu devi (pw-3) corroborated the occurrence by deposing that
the accused-appellant chased them and, upon intervention by
Gopa Ram and Dungar Ram, fired at them, resulting in their
death. Her presence at the scene is natural, and her testimony
remains consistent on material particulars, notwithstanding minor
omissions pointed out during cross-examination.
25. Further corroboration is available from Somli Devi (PW-8),
who stated that upon hearing the commotion, she came out and
saw the accused-appellant quarreling and chasing the women with
a gun, and that when Gopa Ram and Dungar Ram intervened, the
accused-appellant fired at them. Although she stated during cross-
examination that she did not witness the exact moment of firing,
her testimony still supports the immediate sequence of events and
the presence of the accused-appellant at the place of occurrence.
Sayari @ Shanti (PW-9) also deposed that upon hearing cries, she
came out and saw the accused-appellant armed with a gun and
firing at Gopa Ram and Dungar Ram, who fell down and died on
the spot. Her testimony is consistent regarding the role of the
accused-appellant and the manner of occurrence. Chamudevi (PW-
10) similarly stated that upon hearing cries, she came out and
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (10 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
witnessed the accused-appellant assaulting the women and firing
upon the deceased when they intervened. Pappu Devi (PW-11)
also corroborated the prosecution case by stating that the
accused-appellant fired at Gopa Ram and Dungar Ram from a
distance of about 4 to 5 feet when they attempted to intervene.
Though she admitted that she came out after hearing the
commotion, she clearly attributed the act of firing to the accused-
appellant. Thus, the testimonies of these eyewitnesses, when read
conjointly, form a consistent and reliable chain pointing out
towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.
26. Upon appreciation of the evidence of the formal and expert
witnesses, it emerges that Witness P.W.14 Hemnath, the Armorer,
has duly proved the inspection of the firearm. He deposed that in
September 2012, while he was posted at the Armorer Workshop
under the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, he examined an
unnumbered firearm bearing the seal impression of Police Station
Luni, which was brought by Constable Ramlal. The seal impression
was marked 'E', and his report is exhibited as Exhibit P-12 bearing
his signatures from point 'A' to 'B'. He further stated that after
inspection, the sealed packet was re-sealed in the same condition.
In cross-examination, he clarified that pellets begin to disperse
immediately upon exiting the barrel and that such dispersion is
relevant in determining the distance of firing. He categorically
denied the suggestion that he lacked expertise. His testimony
establishes that the weapon in question was duly examined in
accordance with procedure and lends assurance to the prosecution
case regarding the nature of the firearm used.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (11 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
27. Further, the chain of custody and transmission of seized
articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) has been sought
to be established through the testimony of P.W.15 Chhailsingh,
P.W.20 Bhaguram, P.W.21 Dhallaram, and P.W.23 Samandar Singh.
P.W.15 Chhailsingh deposed that on 31.08.2012, he was entrusted
with six sealed packets pertaining to the present case for deposit
at the FSL. He carried the same along with relevant documents to
the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, where
the forwarding letter (Exhibit P-13) was prepared, and thereafter
he deposited the articles at the FSL and obtained receipt (Exhibit
P-14), along with Road Certificate (Exhibit P-15). Though in cross-
examination certain omissions were pointed out, such as absence
of specific entries regarding time, identity of the receiving official,
and non-production of certain diary entries, the witness
consistently maintained that the sealed packets were duly
transported and deposited.
28. P.W.20 Bhaguram corroborated the preparation of forwarding
letters and handling of FSL-related documentation, stating that
sealed packets were received and forwarding letters (Exhibits P-13
and P-17) were prepared after due verification. Though it was
elicited that the forwarding letters did not bear the signature of
the Deputy Commissioner of Police, but rather that of the In-
charge Crime Branch, such discrepancy is procedural in nature and
does not affect the substantive chain of custody. P.W.21 Dhallaram
further deposed that he transported four sealed packets on
17.10.2012 to the FSL, Jaipur, after obtaining the forwarding
letter, and deposited them there, maintaining that the packets
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (12 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
remained sealed throughout. Similarly, P.W.23 Samandar Singh
confirmed that he had handed over the sealed packets to
Dhallaram for FSL examination and that the same were duly
deposited and receipt obtained. Though certain omissions
regarding entries in the Malkhana register and absence of
documentary proof of dispatch were highlighted during cross-
examination, these are procedural lapses which do not demolish
the prosecution case, particularly when there is no suggestion that
the seals were tampered with.
29. Witness P.W.26 Sitaram Singh, who was among the first
police officers to reach the scene, has proved that the written
report (Exhibit P-1) was submitted to him by the complainant and
that the seized muzzle-loading gun was later unsealed for
verification and re-sealed in his presence, with memorandum
(Exhibit P-21) prepared accordingly. Though he admitted certain
procedural aspects, such as absence of written orders and the fact
that he did not recover the weapon from the scene, his testimony
remains consistent regarding the initial steps taken in the
investigation.
30. The Investigating Officer, P.W.27 Nitin Dave, has candidly
admitted certain lapses in the investigation, including non-
incorporation of certain information in the case diary, non-
obtaining of expert opinion regarding distance of firing, absence of
entries in the Malkhana register regarding deposit and dispatch of
articles, and failure to collect primary electronic evidence such as
the memory card. However, he has consistently maintained that
the investigation was conducted in accordance with law and that
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (13 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
the recovery of the weapon and other material evidence was
genuine. The omissions and deficiencies pointed out in his cross-
examination, though indicative of certain procedural irregularities;
do not go to the root of the prosecution case so as to render it
unreliable.
31. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, P.W.28, Dr.
Deendayal Meena, who was serving as a Medical Jurist at MDM
Hospital at the relevant time, has duly proved the post-mortem
reports of both deceased persons, namely Dungar Ram and Gopa
Ram. P.W.28, Dr. Deendayal Meena deposed that on 10.08.2012 at
about 11:30 AM, he conducted the post-mortem examination of
the deceased Dungar Ram pursuant to a written requisition from
Police Station Luni, and assessed the time of death to be
approximately 12 to 36 hours prior to the examination. During the
post-mortem deceased Dungar Ram had sustained the following
injuries-
I. A contused puncture wound located on the right side of the chest,
anteriorly and laterally, situated between the 6th and 7th ribs. The
wound measured 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, with associated blood accumulation.
It penetrated deeply into the pleural cavity, and the upper portion of the
right lung was severely lacerated; a pellet was recovered from this site,
and approximately two liters of blood had accumulated within the cavity.
II. A contused puncture wound located on the medial (inner) aspect of the
left ankle joint, involving the tibia bone. The wound measured 0.5 cm x
0.5 cm and extended deep into the bone; a pellet was recovered from
this location.
III. A contused puncture wound located on the anterior aspect of the lower
one-third of the left leg. The wound measured 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm and
extended deep into the muscle tissue, with associated blood
accumulation.
IV. A contused wound located on the medial aspect of the left knee. The
wound measured 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm and extended deep into the muscle
tissue, with associated blood accumulation.
32. X-rays of the body were conducted; upon examination, a
pellet was observed lodged in the upper portion of the tibia bone.
During the post-mortem, two pellets were recovered; these were
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (14 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
sealed and forwarded to the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory)
through the police. The Post-Mortem Report is marked as (Exhibit
P-50).
33. Later that, in the same evening, at 4:30 PM, a post-mortem
examination was conducted on Gopa Ram, pursuant to a written
request from the SHO (Station House Officer) of Luni. During this
post-mortem, the following injuries were observed:-
I. A lacerated wound located on the posterior aspect of the head (occipital
region), in the upper one-third portion, situated towards the right and
laterally. The dimensions of the wound are 3 cm x 1.5 cm. A broken
pellet was present within the wound; upon opening the scalp, a
collection of blood was observed between the scalp tissue and the
underlying bone. Further dissection of the head revealed a subdural
hematoma in the parieto-occipital region.
II. A lacerated wound located on the left side of the mouth, extending from
the lower lip towards the upper lip. A collection of blood was present,
and the upper central and lateral incisor teeth were fractured.
III. A lacerated puncture wound located on the right side of the chest,
situated above the right clavicle. The dimensions are 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm,
located in the lateral one-third portion. A collection of blood was
present, and a pellet was recovered from within the underlying muscle
tissue.
IV. A lacerated puncture wound located on the right side of the chest,
situated below the right clavicle in the lateral one-third portion. The
dimensions are 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, accompanied by a collection of blood.
V. A contused puncture wound on the abdomen, located 5 cm above the
umbilicus on the right side of the chest, situated 1 cm laterally to the
right of the midline. The wound measures 1.5 cm in length and 3/4 cm
in width, with a depth extending up to the diaphragm.
34. Upon X-ray examination of the Gopa Ram, a pellet was
detected on the right side of the body. The pellets recovered from
the deceased's body were sent to the FSL (Forensic Science
Laboratory) for analysis. The Post-Mortem Report of Gopa Ram
has been exhibited as (Exhibit P-51). The witness opined that the
cause of death of Gopa Ram was coma resulting from a firearm
injury to the head, whereas the injuries found on Dungar Ram
were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death due
to excessive internal hemorrhage.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (15 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
35. During cross-examination, the medical expert clarified
important aspects relating to firearm injuries. He stated that the
injuries were caused by pellets and not by a single bullet, and that
each injury corresponded to a separate pellet rather than a cluster
entering together. He further explained that pellet dispersion
begins shortly after exiting the firearm, and that the spread
increases proportionately with distance; thus, the spread could
vary depending on the distance of firing. The witness admitted
that based on the distribution of injuries, the possibility of firing
from a distance of approximately 40 to 50 feet cannot be ruled
out. He also stated that if a person, upon noticing the firing,
attempts to turn or evade multiple injuries on different parts of
the body could occur in the manner observed. However, he opined
that if two persons were standing strictly one behind the other,
such injury patterns would not ordinarily occur. He further clarified
that even a single gunshot could result in multiple pellet injuries,
depending upon the circumstances.
36. From the above medical evidence, it is clearly established
that both deceased persons died homicidal deaths caused by
firearm injuries. The nature, number, and location of injuries, as
well as the recovery of pellets from their bodies, fully corroborate
the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses that the accused-
appellant fired upon the deceased. The medical testimony also
rules out the possibility of accidental or self-inflicted injuries and
lends strong assurance to the prosecution case. Although certain
possibilities regarding distance and positioning were suggested
during cross-examination, the same do not create any material
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (16 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
contradiction with the prosecution version and are consistent with
the occurrence of a single gunshot causing multiple pellet injuries.
Thus, the medical evidence stands in complete consonance with
the ocular and circumstantial evidence on record.
37. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, this Court finds that the prosecution case stands fully
substantiated. The testimony of the complainant, Mohanlal (PW-
1), is clear, cogent, and trustworthy, and his version of the
incident has been duly corroborated by the eyewitnesses, viz.
Dakhu Devi (PW-2), Chandu Devi (PW-3), Somli Devi (PW-8),
Sayari @ Shanti (PW-9), Chamudevi (PW-10), and Pappu Devi
(PW-11). All these witnesses have consistently supported the
prosecution case on material particulars, particularly with regard
to the presence of the accused-appellant, the act of firing, and the
resultant death of Gopa Ram and Dungar Ram. Their presence at
the scene is natural and cannot be doubted.
38. The medical evidence, as adduced by Dr. Deendayal Meena
(PW-28), lends complete corroboration to the ocular version. The
doctor has categorically opined that the death of Dungar Ram was
caused due to shock resulting from excessive hemorrhage owing
to firearm injuries, while the death of Gopa Ram was caused due
to coma resulting from firearm injury to the head. The recovery of
pellets from the bodies of both deceased persons and their
transmission to the FSL further strengthens the prosecution case.
Thus, the medical evidence fully supports and corroborates the
prosecution narrative.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (17 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
39. The recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been duly proved by the
Investigating Officer and corroborated by independent witness
PW-13 Shakti Singh. Along with the firearm, other incriminating
articles such as gunpowder, pellets, and related materials were
also recovered from the house of the accused-appellant. The FSL
report (Exhibit P-44) confirms the presence of human blood on the
seized articles, and blood group 'B' was detected on the soil and
clothing of the deceased Dungar Ram. Further, as per Exhibit P-
45, the pellets recovered were found to have been fired from a
muzzle-loading firearm, thereby conclusively linking the weapon
with the crime. These scientific findings lend strong corroboration
to the prosecution case.
40. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the statements of
PW-17 Bhikharam and PW-18 Bhanaram to suggest that the
accused was not present at the scene; however, their testimony
remains uncorroborated and does not inspire confidence.
Moreover, no plea of alibi has been specifically raised or proved.
41. The primary contention of the learned senior counsel for the
accused-appellant is that there are material contradictions in the
statements of the eyewitnesses, thereby rendering their testimony
unreliable. However, upon careful scrutiny of the material available
on record, this Court finds that the alleged contradictions are
minor and trivial in nature, relating only to peripheral aspects such
as distance and sequence, and do not affect the core of the
prosecution case. It is a settled principle of law that minor
discrepancies are bound to occur, particularly when witnesses
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (18 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
belong to rural and uneducated backgrounds, and such
discrepancies do not render the entire testimony unreliable. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rana Pratap vs. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1980 SC 680 has clearly held that the concept of
a "chance witness" is not applicable in the Indian context in a rigid
sense, and natural witnesses present at the scene cannot be
discarded merely on such a ground.
42. Further, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan
vs. Omprakash, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2257, only those
contradictions which go to the root of the matter and materially
affect the prosecution case are to be considered fatal. In the
present case, no such material contradiction has been
demonstrated. Similarly, in State of U.P. vs. Krishna Master,
reported in (2010) 12 SCC 324 it has been held that minor
inconsistencies in the testimony of rustic witnesses subjected to
lengthy cross-examination cannot be a ground to discard their
evidence.
43. The Learned Senior Counsel has also raised objections
regarding alleged defects in investigation, including absence of
certain diary entries, irregularities in Malkhana records, and non-
obtaining of certain expert opinions. However, it is well settled by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P.
reported in AIR 1995 SC 2472 and Leela Ram vs. State of
Haryana reported in AIR 1999 SC 3717 that defects or
irregularities in investigation do not vitiate the prosecution case
unless they go to the root of the matter. In the present case, the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (19 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
core prosecution story remains intact and stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
44. The contention regarding inconsistency between medical and
ocular evidence is also without merit. The medical evidence clearly
establishes that the injuries were caused by pellets fired from a
firearm, which fully supports the prosecution case. The
discrepancy regarding the exact distance of firing is not material,
as it is based on estimation by eyewitnesses, and it is not
expected from rural witnesses to provide precise measurements.
It is a settled principle that where ocular evidence is reliable, it
prevails unless completely contradicted by medical evidence,
which is not the case here.
45. The argument that the recovery witness is a police official is
also untenable. It is well established that the testimony of a police
witness cannot be discarded solely on that ground if it is otherwise
reliable. The recovery has been duly proved, and the sanction for
prosecution has also been properly established through the
testimony of the Investigating Officer, who has identified the
signatures of the competent authority.
46. As regards motive, the complainant has clearly deposed
about a prior land dispute and enmity. Even otherwise, in the
presence of direct and reliable evidence, motive loses its
significance and is not essential for conviction.
47. In view of the entire discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Jagdish @ Jaggaram,
on 09.08.2012 at about 4:00 PM near village Baniyawas,
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13489-DB] (20 of 20) [CRLA-941/2016]
intentionally fired upon Gopa Ram and Dungar Ram, resulting in
their death, and was also found in conscious possession of an
unlicensed firearm and consequently, the learned trial court has
rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
after proper appreciation of evidence and the same do not suffer
from any illegality or perversity.
48. 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. We are of the considered view
that the learned trial court has rightly passed the sentence against
the accused-appellant and therefore no interference in the same is
warranted.
49. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of
merit, is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction
and sentence dated 30.09.2016 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, is hereby affirmed.
50. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
51. Office is directed to send the record of the trial court
forthwith.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:59:29 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
