Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratti Ram vs State on 20 September, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 403/2005
1. Bhanwardan S/o shri Mohan Dan B/c Charan, R/o Butati, P.S.
Kuchera, District Nagaur
2. Paras Kanwar W/o Bhanwardan B/c Charan, R/o Butati, P.S.
Kuchera, District Nagaur
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 56/2007
Ratti Ram S/o Hamira Ram B/c Bishnoi, R/o Butati, P.S. Kuchera,
District Nagaur
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Judgment
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON ::: 17/07/2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON ::: 20/09/2025
BY THE COURT:- (Per Hon'ble Farjand Ali, J.)
1. The appellants Bhawardan and Paras Kanwar have been convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Nagaur in Sessions Case No.17/2005 whereby the learned Judge convicted both the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment along with fine of (Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM) (Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB] (2 of 12) [CRLA-403/2005] Rs.2,000/- each and in default in payment of fine to further undergo three months' imprisonment.
2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and the sentences awarded to them, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are that On 19.11.2004 at 8:00 A.M., complainant Bhanwararam submitted a written report at Police Station Kuchera, alleging the murder of his brother Bhanaram. It was stated in the complaint that his brother Bhanaram had cultivated the well of Indraram Dhawa in the preceding year and due to frequent visits to village Butati, had monetary dealings with Ratiram Vishnoi, to whom he owed @ Rs. 15,000/-. When repayment was demanded, a dispute ensued, causing Ratiram to bear animosity towards him. On 13.11.2004, he was informed by his brother that he was proceeding to Butati and would return within a few days. However, in the intervening night, Bhallaram and Ramkishore (Constable) informed the complainant that his brother Bhanaram had been murdered at Dhani. Whereafter, the complainant, along with Bhallaram, Omprakash, and Goparam, proceeded to Butati and upon inquiry, witnesses Narayan Meghwal and Banshi Meghwal disclosed that at about 10:00 P.M. they heard cries of "maare re maare" from the dhani of Bhanwardan. In the torchlight, they allegedly saw Bhanwardan assaulting the deceased with an axe and his wife was also inflicting axe blows, while Ratiram, armed with a stick, exhorted (Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM) (Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB] (3 of 12) [CRLA-403/2005] them to kill the deceased and himself struck blows. Bhanaram succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
3.1. On the basis of the report, FIR No. 114/2004 was registered at Police Station Kuchera, investigation commenced. Accused- appellants were arrested and after conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against them in the Court concerned for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. The trial court framed charges against the accused for the above mentioned offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 49 documents to prove its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the same and claimed to be innocent. Seven witness were examined in defence and some documents were tendered into evidence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused-appellants as above. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. B.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that the prosecution case is a concocted narrative, lacking authenticity, bereft of independent corroboration, and wholly unworthy of reliance. It is contended that the prosecution has utterly failed to produce any credible material that could justly connect the appellants with the alleged crime.
(Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM) (Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB] (4 of 12) [CRLA-403/2005] 4.1. It is further submitted that no direct ocular testimony is available on record. The very witnesses who were initially projected as eye-witnesses resiled from their earlier versions, turned hostile, and consequently, the substratum of the prosecution case collapsed. In the absence of reliable and trustworthy ocular evidence, conviction could not have been sustained.
4.2. Equally significant is the fact that no motive whatsoever has been attributed to the appellants for committing the murder of Bhanaram. In a case which hinges substantially on circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive assumes decisive importance and completely undermines the prosecution's version. 4.3. Counsel has also highlighted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses suffer from grave infirmities. Their statements are riddled with material contradictions, glaring omissions, and palpable improvements. Despite these serious deficiencies, the learned Trial Court erred in placing reliance upon such unworthy testimony, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
4.4. With regard to the circumstances of the incident, it is submitted that the deceased unlawfully entered the dhani of the appellants during the night with the intention of outraging the modesty of Smt. Paras Kanwar. On hearing her cries, neighbouring persons rushed to the spot and assaulted him. It was on account of such beating, and not at the hands of the appellants, that Bhanaram sustained fatal injuries. This defence version is (Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM) (Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB] (5 of 12) [CRLA-403/2005] consistent, probable, and supported by surrounding circumstances, but was unjustifiably ignored by the Trial Court. 4.5. It is further submitted that the forensic evidence relied upon by the prosecution is equally inconsequential. The F.S.L. report merely indicates the presence of human blood on the clothes of the appellants but fails to establish its group or its nexus with the deceased. Reliance on such inconclusive scientific evidence for recording conviction is impermissible in law and demonstrates serious error in the Trial Court's approach.
4.6. Furthermore, in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants provided a cogent and plausible explanation of all incriminating circumstances appearing against them. Their version is in consonance with human probabilities and natural conduct. Yet, the Trial Court brushed aside these explanations without assigning cogent reasons, thereby ignoring an essential safeguard of criminal jurisprudence.
4.7. It is a settled principle that in a criminal trial, the entire burden of proof lies upon the prosecution and the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Any shadow of doubt must necessarily ensure to the benefit of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge this burden, and the conviction stands founded on conjectures, surmises, and speculative reasoning rather than on legally admissible evidence.
4.8. In the totality of circumstances, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is manifestly unsustainable, both on facts (Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM) (Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB] (6 of 12) [CRLA-403/2005] and in law. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of all charges.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and ardently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. He submitted that there is ample evidence on record to substantiate the charges against the appellants. He, thus, submitted that no interference whatsoever is called for in the impugned judgment whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as above.
6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the impugned judgment and have minutely re- appreciated the evidence available on record. 6.1. Upon a meticulous scrutiny of the record, this Court finds that PW-18 Bhanwararam, the first informant, is admittedly not an eyewitness to the incident. The report lodged by him, as well as his deposition before the Court, rests entirely upon information conveyed by Bansi Lal and Narain Ram, and as such, his testimony cannot assume the character of substantive or reliable evidence capable of establishing the culpability of the appellant. At best, his statement amounts to hearsay, which is inadmissible in the eyes of law and thus cannot be pressed into service to sustain a conviction. Furthermore, a deeper analysis of his testimony discloses that there existed no animosity, prior enmity, or other underlying hostility between the appellants and the deceased. The (Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM) (Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB] (7 of 12) [CRLA-403/2005] absence of such motive assumes critical importance, for it undermines the very substratum of the prosecution's case, which sought to predicate guilt upon the existence of motive as a connecting link in the chain of circumstances. It is trite that motive, though relevant, cannot by itself establish guilt unless fortified by cogent, credible, and corroborative evidence; in its absence, the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution's case becomes tenuous and incapable of sustaining a conviction. This dual infirmity the inadmissibility of his hearsay evidence coupled with the absence of motive strikes at the very root of the prosecution's case and renders the testimony of PW-18 Bhanwararam wholly unreliable for fastening criminal liability upon the appellants.
6.2. Similarly, PW-2 Goparam, who allegedly communicated the incident to PW-18 Bhanwararam, candidly admitted that he neither saw the appellants at the scene of occurrence nor witnessed him inflicting injuries upon the deceased or committing the murder. Thus, the testimony of PW-2 also fails to advance the prosecution case in any meaningful manner.
6.3. The entire edifice of the prosecution's version rests primarily upon the testimonies of PW-7 Bansi Lal and PW-8 Narain Ram, who were projected as eyewitnesses in the FIR. It is undisputed that no other persons, except them, were cited as eyewitnesses to the incident. However, both these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. In fact, not only PW-7 Bansi Lal and PW-8 Narain Ram, but also PW-1 Kailash, PW-4 Prem Nagori, (Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM) (Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB] (8 of 12) [CRLA-403/2005] PW-5 Indraj, PW-6 Nathu Singh, PW-10 Amar Singh, and PW-13 Bhalla Ram were declared hostile, thereby creating a serious dent in the prosecution story.
6.4. The testimony of PW-3 Dr. Ram Kumar Goyal, who conducted the post-mortem and proved Exhibit P-17 Postmortem report, establishes only the medical fact that the deceased died of the injuries sustained and that the cause of death was homicidal in nature.
6.5. Likewise, PW-11 Kishandas, the photographer, merely proved the photographs of the dead body and the crime scene. 6.6. PW-17 Iidanram, the Malkhana in-charge, testified that he received sealed packets from the Investigating Officer, entered the same in the Malkhana register (Exhibit P-37), and handed them over to PW-15 Jhumar Ram, a constable, for sending the same for chemical examination. Therefore, apart from the medical evidence confirming the homicidal nature of the death, there remains no substantive or credible ocular testimony linking the appellant with the alleged crime. PW-15 Jhumar Ram, attached to the office of the Superintendent of Police, merely prepared the forwarding letter, while PW-9 Parasmal Jain deposed about the recording of certain statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-19, Chhotu Ram, another Investigating Officer, testified about effecting the arrest of the accused and conducting part of the investigation. None of these witnesses, however, deposed anything directly connecting the appellants with the commission of the offence. It thus appears that the learned trial Court proceeded to (Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM) (Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB] (9 of 12) [CRLA-403/2005] convict the appellant not on the basis of cogent and trustworthy evidence, but rather by adopting a hypothetical and conjectural approach. The findings recorded appear to be rooted more in surmises than in substantive legal evidence.
7. It is a settled rule of criminal jurisprudence that the standard of proof required in a criminal trial is of the highest degree. The age-old maxim that the burden of proving the charge lies squarely upon the prosecution is not an empty formality but a fundamental safeguard in criminal law. The prosecution must prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt, and any shadow of doubt, however slight, must necessarily enure to the benefit of the accused. 7.1. Indisputably, there is no eyewitness account of the incident of murder; the entire prosecution case is premised upon circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has laid down that in cases solely based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved individually beyond every shadow of reasonable doubt. Taken cumulatively, the circumstances must lead only to one inference, namely the guilt of the accused, to the exclusion of every other hypothesis. The circumstantial evidence should be like a spider's web, leaving no exit for the accused to escape.
7.2. In the celebrated judgment in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 (Criminal Appeal No.195/1960), Justice K. Subbarao while discussing the misdirections committed by the Sessions Judge, enunciated:
(Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM) (Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB] (10 of 12) [CRLA-403/2005] "It is like this, take a word, split it up into letters, the letters may individually mean nothing but when they are combined they will form a word pregnant with meaning. That is the way how you have to consider the circumstantial evidence. You have to take all the circumstances together and judge for yourself whether the prosecution have established their case." Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reiterate the theory of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence means evidence not drawn from direct observation of the fact in issue, but inferred from relevant facts. In other words, where there is no direct evidence of the principal fact, but there exist surrounding circumstances which, though not facts in issue, are relevant to it, then from their establishment a safe inference of the principal fact can be drawn. Hence, it is termed as "inferential evidence."
7.3. Though there is no straitjacket formula for the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the Courts have consistently prescribed certain cardinal tests. These principles, initially propounded in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343, and followed consistently thereafter, may be summarized as follows:
(i) Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.
(ii) Those circumstances must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature.
(Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM) (Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB] (11 of 12) [CRLA-403/2005]
(iii) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete as to leave no escape from the conclusion that, within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
(iv) The circumstances must be wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every other possible hypothesis except that of guilt. Keeping these settled principles in mind, if one evaluates the circumstances adduced by the prosecution in the present case, it was alleged that the appellant bore a motive to commit the murder of Bhanaram due to a monetary dispute. However, the evidence in this regard is tenuous. No substantial proof of such dispute was placed on record, except a bald and vague allegation by a witness. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the existence of any motive attributable to the appellant. 7.4. It is a settled proposition of law that there exists a vast distance between "may be true" and "must be true". This gap must be bridged only through unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence. Courts must exercise extreme caution while traversing this distance, especially in cases of grave offences like murder, where the punishment may extend to life imprisonment or even death. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. 7.5. In light of the categorical findings delineated above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove even a single incriminating circumstance against the appellants to sustain the conviction. The impugned judgment of conviction, therefore, does not withstand judicial scrutiny.
(Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM) (Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41917-DB] (12 of 12) [CRLA-403/2005]
8. Accordingly, the instant appeal (403/2005) is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case is hereby set aside. The appellants stand acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC. As the appellants are already on bail, their bail bonds are discharged. 8.1. However, in compliance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹40,000/- along with one surety in the like amount before the trial court. The bond shall remain in force for six months to ensure the appellants presence before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the event a Special Leave Petition is filed against this judgment and notice thereof is received.
8.2. The record be transmitted back forthwith. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 56/2007
1. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the status report dated 29.07.2025, transmitted by the SHO, Police Station Kuchera, District Nagaur, as per which, the appellant Ratti Ram has expired.
2. In view of the demise of the said appellant, the present appeal, insofar as it pertains to him, stands abated and is accordingly dismissed as having abated.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (FARJAND ALI),J
155-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:52:46 AM)
(Downloaded on 03/10/2025 at 11:02:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)