Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhopal Singh vs State on 17 September, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 275/1988
Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh
Resident of Sevatalao, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 228/1988
1. Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, Resident of Sevtalao
2. Gena Ram S/o Pithaji, Resident of Juna
3. Pannalal S/o Pemaji, Resident of Village Mundara
All Residents of Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 239/1988
1. Bhopal Singh S/o Shri Sher Singh
2. Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh
3. Inder Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh
All Residents of Sevtalao, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 244/1988
1. Madan Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh
2. Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh
All Residents od Sevtalab, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (2 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 276/1988
Bhopal Singh S/o Guman Singh Rajpurohit
Resident of Sevtalab, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 220/2005
Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu Singh
Resident of Sevtalab, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
Mr. Sanjay Mathur
Mr. Mridul Jain
Mr. L.D. Khatri
Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, Public Prosecutor
with
Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, Public Prosecutor
Mr. Suresh Kumbhat with Mr. Sheetal
Kumbhat
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Judgment Reserved on 29/07/2025 Pronounced on 17/09/2025 Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant criminal appeals, being D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos.
275/1988, 228/1988, 239/1988, 244/1988 and 276/1988, have (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (3 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the accused- appellants, namely, Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, Gena Ram S/o Pithaji, Pannalal S/o Pemaji, Bhopal Singh S/o Sher Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Inder Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Madan Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, and Bhopal Singh S/o Guman Singh Rajpurohit, assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, in Sessions Case No. 58/1984 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Narpat Singh & Ors.).
1.1. Alongside, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 220/2005 has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali, in Sessions Case No. 70/1999 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Singh). 1.2. It is pertinent to note that although both judgments of conviction and sentence arose out of the same incident, the trials were conducted separately on account of the fact that accused- appellant Bhanwar Singh remained absconding during the initial proceedings and was apprehended at a later stage. Hence, upon his arrest, a separate trial came to be conducted against him. 1.3. In these circumstances, since both sets of proceedings emanate from the same occurrence, the present appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts as recorded and considered in the judgment dated 19.05.1988 shall be taken as (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (4 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] the factual foundation, and the present judgment in the appeals against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence shall equally govern and apply also to the appeal preferred by accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh.
2. In the aforesaid background, it is considered appropriate to first notice the convictions recorded and the sentences awarded to the accused-appellants by the learned Trial Court, which are as under:
2.1. Accused-appellants Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o Guman Singh, Madan Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o Shri Sher Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, Inder Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh: (for Murder of Hiralal) Conviction u/s. Sentence & In Default of Fine payment of fine further undergo 302 and 302/149 of Life Imprisonment Two month's I.P.C. a/w fine of Rs.1000/- additional (each of the imprisonment accused-appellants) 2.2. Accused-appellants Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o Guman Singh, Madan Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o Shri Sher Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, Inder Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, Gena Ram S/o Pithaji, Pannalal S/o Pemaji: (for Murder of Kapura) Conviction u/s. Sentence & In Default of Fine payment of fine further undergo 302 and 302/149 of Life Imprisonment Two month's I.P.C. a/w fine of Rs.1000/- additional (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (5 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] (each of the imprisonment accused-appellants) 148 I.P.C. Two years' R.I. a/w One Month's R.I. fine of Rs.500/-
(each of the accused-appellants) 2.3. Accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh:
Conviction u/s. Sentence & In Default of
Fine payment of fine
further undergo
302 and 302/149 of Life Imprisonment Two month's
I.P.C. a/w fine of Rs.1000/- additional
(for Murder of Hiralal) imprisonment
302 and 302/149 of Life Imprisonment Two month's
I.P.C. a/w fine of Rs.1000/- additional
(for Murder of Kapura) imprisonment
148 I.P.C. Two years' R.I. a/w One Month's R.I.
fine of Rs.500/-
3. At the outset, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor, through production of a report dated 29.07.2025 submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadari, District Pali, that the accused-appellants, namely, Bhopal Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o Sher Singh, Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, and Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, have expired during the pendency of these appeals. Accordingly, the present appeals, qua the aforesaid deceased appellants, stand abated. The said report is taken on record. Thus, the appeals now survive only qua accused-appellants Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Madan Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Gena Ram S/o (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (6 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] Pithaji, Pannalal S/o Pemaji, and Inder Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, and the present adjudication is confined to them. 3.1. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1980 and the present appeals have been pending since the years 1988 and 2005, respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court, are that a written report (Ex.P.3) was submitted by the complainant, Raghunath Singh (P.W.8), on 22.11.1980, regarding an incident alleged to have occurred on the same day. In the said report, it was stated that there existed a long-standing enmity between his family on the one hand and Prabhu Singh and Bhopal Singh, along with their family members and companions, on the other. It was further alleged that, owing to this rivalry, Prabhu Singh and Bhopal Singh, along with their associates, had previously attempted to murder his brothers Hiralal and Sohan Singh, and that criminal cases in relation thereto were already pending before the competent Courts.
4.1. It was further narrated in the report that on 22.11.1980, while the complainant was returning from his agricultural field at Rajpura to Sevtalab on a tractor around 5:00-5:15 p.m. along with Nar Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, he met Jai Singh S/o Hiralal on the way, just ahead of Sadari. Jai Singh informed him that about half an hour/three-quarters of an hour earlier, his father Hiralal had been attacked near the nadi (water reservoir) of village Sevtalab by Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Madan Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (7 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] Bhopal Singh, Inder Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, and Bhopal Singh S/o Sher Singh. It was alleged that the aforesaid accused persons, armed with lathis, dhariyas, kulhadis and bhalas, had inflicted injuries upon Hiralal with the intention to kill him.
4.2. It was further stated by Jai Singh that he, along with Jogendra Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, had witnessed the said incident. After assaulting Hiralal, the accused-appellants proceeded towards the temple of Shri Ramdevji. Since the accused were armed with deadly weapons and were larger in number, Jai Singh and Jogendra Singh did not dare to intervene. However, upon their shouts for help, Prithviraj also arrived at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, Jai Singh, Jogendra Singh, and Prithviraj lifted the injured Hiralal from the nadi and brought him to his house. It was further alleged that thereafter, Prithviraj went to arrange for a vehicle in order to take Hiralal to the hospital, while Jai Singh proceeded towards the police station to lodge a report of the incident. On the way, Jai Singh met the complainant and narrated the entire incident. The complainant, accompanied by Jai Singh, immediately went to Sevtalab, where they found Hiralal lying injured in his house. His hands were fractured, and blood was oozing from various parts of his body.
4.3. The report further alleged that upon inquiry by the complainant, Hiralal himself disclosed that while he was returning from the hotel towards the chakki, he was waylaid by Bhopal Singh, Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (8 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] Singh, Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Madan Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Inder Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, and Bhopal Singh S/o Sher Singh. He stated that the aforesaid accused persons, armed with lathis, dhariyas, kulhadis and bhalas, had inflicted multiple blows upon him. Hiralal further told the complainant that he was in severe pain and requested that he be taken to the hospital immediately. The complainant thereafter took his brother Hiralal to the hospital in a car belonging to one Jevarchand, which had been arranged by Prithviraj. However, upon reaching the hospital, Hiralal succumbed to his injuries after some time. It was further informed to the complainant that, subsequent to the assault on Hiralal, the accused-appellants had also beaten Kapura S/o Pemaji Kumhar. The said assault was witnessed by Kapura's wife and daughter, Bhikhi. Kapura too was brought to the hospital in the same car, but he also succumbed to his injuries in the Hospital. 4.4. On the basis of the aforementioned report, the police registered a case against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC and started investigation. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under the relevant sections; owing to the nature of crime involved, the matter was committed for Sessions Trial, from where the case was transferred to the learned Trial Court for the necessary Trial. 4.5. During the course of trial, the statements of 29 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 29) were recorded, documents (Ex.P.1 to 92) were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and in defence, the accused produced 16 witnesses (D.W. 1 to D.W. 16) and exhibited (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (9 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] documents.(Ex.D.1 to Ex.D. 208); whereafter, the accused- appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal case in question.
4.6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as above, vide the impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence dated 19.05.1988 & 19.02.2005, respectively; against which, the present appeals have been preferred by the accused-appellants.
5. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi, and Mr. Sanjay Mathur, Mr. Mridul Jain, Mr. L.D. Khatri, Mr.Mahesh Thanvi, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants, submitted that the genesis of the prosecution case is shrouded in serious doubts, as the earliest information recorded by the police did not name most of the accused-appellants.
5.1. It was contended that even prior to the filing of the written report (Ex.P.3) by complainant Raghunath Singh, the incident had already been reported by Prithviraj (P.W.6), who claimed himself to be an eyewitness. Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.6 Prithviraj had gone to arrange transport to carry the injured Hiralal to the hospital, and thereafter, he proceeded to the Police Outpost Lakara, where he lodged the first information regarding the occurrence.
5.2. The said information was duly entered in the Daily Diary (Rojnamcha Ex.D.19). In this earliest version, P.W.6 Prithviraj merely stated that "Prabhu Singh and Bhopal Singh and their (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (10 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] associates" had assaulted Hiralal and Kapura. No other accused- appellant was named therein.
5.3. Furthermore, it was urged that in Ex.D.21, being another statement recorded subsequent to Ex.D.19, P.W.6 Prithviraj again did not specify the names of any other accused, except Prabhu Singh and Bhopal Singh. Even in doing so, the parentage of either of the two individuals named as "Bhopal Singh" was not mentioned, despite the fact that among the array of accused persons, there are two individuals bearing the same name. 5.4. Thus, it was submitted that the earliest version of the incident, as given spontaneously by a claimed eyewitness, not only failed to name most of the present appellants, but also suffered from grave ambiguity in identifying even those two individuals who were named. According to the appellants, this omission in the earliest report casts a serious shadow of doubt on the subsequent written report (Ex.P.3) and the later embellishments therein, which appear to have been an afterthought and the result of deliberation and consultation. 5.5. It was further submitted that the subsequent written report (Ex.P.3), which has been treated as the FIR, was lodged only at about 10:30 p.m. at Police Station Sadari. By that time, as is borne out from the record, both the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer of Police Station Sadari were already present at the hospital where the injured had been brought and where, in fact, Hiralal had succumbed to his injuries.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (11 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] 5.6. It was emphasized that not only the police officials but also all the three alleged eyewitnesses, namely, Jai Singh, Jogendra Singh, and Prithviraj (P.W.6), as well as the complainant Raghunath Singh (P.W.8) himself, were admittedly present at the hospital well before 10:30 p.m. In such circumstances, the appellants contended, the lodging of a detailed report at the police station at a belated hour raises grave suspicion. 5.7. Thus, it was submitted that the intervening period between the occurrence and the formal registration of Ex.P.3 provided ample opportunity for deliberation and consultation, thereby enabling the complainant party to embellish and amplify the list of accused persons. The sharp contrast between the earliest information (Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.21) which named only Prabhu Singh and Bhopal Singh and the detailed report Ex.P.3, which contains a full roll-call of accused persons with weapons allegedly carried by them, strongly suggests afterthought, exaggeration, and false implication of a large number of accused due to long- standing enmity.
5.8. It was further submitted that the delay in lodging the written report (Ex.P.3) becomes even more significant when examined in the light of the testimony of two police constables posted at the Lakara Outpost, who were admittedly present in the village when complainant Raghunath Singh reached the residence of the injured Hiralal.
5.9. Out of the said two constables, Mag Singh (P.W.9) categorically deposed that he was informed only that "Bhopal (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (12 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] Singh and Prabhu Singh and their associates" had assaulted Hiralal. Significantly, the names of none of the other accused- appellants were disclosed at that stage.
5.10. The other constable Vijay Singh (P.W.11), though present with P.W.9, gave no account whatsoever of any disclosure allegedly made by the injured Hiralal. Even more importantly, P.W.9 himself admitted that he had no knowledge of any alleged eyewitnesses to the incident.
5.11. It was, therefore, contended that this contemporaneous version given to the police constables at the very earliest point of time, immediately after the occurrence, undermines the subsequent prosecution story. It clearly demonstrates that the true assailants were not known or not disclosed at that stage, and the subsequent naming of a large number of accused persons in Ex.P.3 is nothing but a result of deliberation and afterthought. 5.12. It was further urged on behalf of the appellants that once Ex.D.19, being the Rojnamcha entry based on the information supplied by Prithviraj (P.W.6), had already been conveyed to the police immediately after the incident, the subsequent report Ex.P.3 could not, in law, be treated as the "first information" under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
5.13. It was also submitted that Ex.P.3, being a statement recorded after Ex.D.19, squarely falls within the mischief of Section 162 Cr.P.C., which prohibits the use of any statement made to a police officer during investigation, except for the limited purpose of contradiction. Since the substratum of the prosecution (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (13 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] case is built upon Ex.P.3, its very admissibility as an FIR is legally untenable.
5.14. It was contended that treating Ex.P.3 as the FIR, despite the prior existence of Ex.D.19, results in serious prejudice to the accused-appellants, because the real contemporaneous version has been sidelined in favour of a later embellished document prepared after deliberation. In these circumstances, the prosecution story becomes inherently unreliable and the conviction based thereon cannot be sustained.
5.15. It was further contended that even the explanation offered by Prithviraj (P.W.6) regarding his movements immediately after the occurrence is riddled with suspicion. According to him, he went to arrange for transport to take the injured Hiralal to the hospital. It was argued that this explanation is wholly unconvincing in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the complainant party admittedly had access to multiple vehicles in the village, including the tractor on which Raghunath Singh (complainant and P.W.8) himself was travelling at the relevant time. In light of these available means, Prithviraj's story that he had to specifically leave the spot to arrange transport becomes improbable. The appellants thus contended that the conduct of P.W.6 Prithviraj was unnatural and inconsistent with that of a true eyewitness. His presence at the scene, and his version of events, therefore becomes doubtful, further eroding the reliability of the prosecution case. 5.16. It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses is replete with (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (14 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] contradictions and marked by an unnatural account of the incident.
5.16.1. In particular, Prithviraj (P.W.6), though projected as a material eyewitness, admitted during cross-examination that when the assault began, he himself did not intervene or retaliate in any manner. He further conceded that he could not even confirm whether Jai Singh or Jogendra Singh were present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time, thereby directly undermining the presence of the other two eyewitnesses relied upon by the prosecution.
5.16.2. Moreover, while P.W.6 claimed that he had informed the police that "Bhopal Singh, Prabhu Singh and their associates" were the assailants of Hiralal and Kapura, he was unable to attribute any specific injuries to any individual accused. This is borne out from Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.21, which do not contain any details of individual overt acts, but only a vague reference to two names along with the ambiguous expression "and associates." 5.16.3. It was further submitted that such a vague, uncertain, and contradictory version cannot be treated as reliable testimony of an eyewitness, particularly when it stands in stark contrast to the later detailed and embellished version given in Ex.P.3. The unnatural conduct of P.W.6, coupled with his inability to affirm the presence of the other two eyewitnesses, makes the entire ocular account of the prosecution highly doubtful.
5.16.4. It was also contended that the testimony of Jai Singh (P.W.7), another alleged eyewitness, is also wholly unreliable.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (15 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] Despite being projected as having been present at the scene, P.W.7 conspicuously failed to even mention that Prithviraj (P.W.6) was present there, thereby creating a direct contradiction between the versions of the two witnesses. P.W.7 also admitted in his cross-examination that his father Hiralal never disclosed to him the names of the assailants. Learned counsel urged that such silence on the part of a fatally injured victim, who was allegedly conscious and speaking, is contrary to normal human conduct and casts a serious shadow of doubt on the veracity of P.W.7's account. 5.16.5. Moreover, P.W.7 admitted that he did not inform any villagers about the incident nor did he make any attempt to rescue his father from the assault, despite being his son and an immediate family member. The learned counsel emphasized that such passivity in the face of a murderous assault on one's own father is highly unnatural, and his conduct is inconsistent with that of a truthful eyewitness. Taken together, these circumstances demonstrate that the presence of P.W.7 at the scene of occurrence is doubtful, and his testimony cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the appellants.
5.16.6. It was further submitted that Jogendra Singh (P.W.10), the nephew of the deceased Hiralal, also failed to inspire confidence as a truthful eyewitness. In his cross-examination, P.W.10 admitted that he only saw the accused persons following Hiralal from a distance of about 50 feet. Despite allegedly witnessing such a grave situation, he did not raise any hue or cry to warn Hiralal of the impending danger. P.W.10 further admitted that Prithviraj (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (16 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] (P.W.6) and Jai Singh (P.W.7) were present at the spot, yet none of them attempted to intervene or make any effort to prevent the assault. It was urged that this collective inaction is wholly inconsistent with the natural human conduct expected of close relatives witnessing the brutal assault on a family elder. Moreover, P.W.10 did not summon any villagers to the place of occurrence, nor did he assign any specific role or injury to any of the accused persons in his testimony. The failure to attribute distinct injuries, coupled with the broad and omnibus allegations, renders his evidence vague and unreliable.
5.16.7 Learned counsel argued that the testimony of P.W.10, when read with the accounts of P.W.6 and P.W.7, is riddled with contradictions and improbabilities, thereby undermining the prosecution's claim of there being natural and trustworthy eyewitnesses.
5.17. The learned counsel for the appellants further placed reliance on the testimony of Nahar Singh (P.W.25), Dy.S.P., Police Station Sadri, who admitted in his cross-examination that none of the police personnel from Lakhara outpost were present in the hospital when the injured persons were brought there. He further admitted that although one constable was present, that constable did not disclose anything regarding the occurrence. According to the learned counsel, this circumstance assumes importance, as it creates doubt over the prosecution version that the police and eyewitnesses were simultaneously present and in knowledge of the incident at the hospital itself. P.W.25 also stated during cross-
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (17 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] examination that, so far as the death of Kapura is concerned, complete knowledge about the incident was gathered only after the statement of Smt. Gattu (P.W.3), wife of Kapura, was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The appellants contended that this admission is inconsistent with the prosecution case that the identity of the assailants and the occurrence were clearly known from the very beginning. It was thus argued that the deposition of P.W.25 supports the defence case that the prosecution story, as projected in Ex.P.3, was not the earliest and spontaneous version of the incident, and that material facts were introduced at a later stage.
5.18. Further, assailment is made to the reliability of the prosecution witnesses relating to the assault on Kapura, namely, Smt. Gattu (P.W.3), Lakma (P.W.4) and Bhiki (P.W.5). It was urged that their testimonies suffer from material infirmities and cannot be treated as trustworthy. It was submitted that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused was conducted only during the trial, after an inordinate delay of nearly two and a half years. In the meantime, the accused persons were not kept baparda. Owing to such delay and exposure, the evidentiary value of the identification proceedings stands substantially diminished. 5.18.1. It was pointed out that Smt. Gattu (P.W.3) wrongly identified Narpat Singh, Madan Singh, Yashpal Singh, Pannalal and Gama Ram. Bhiki (P.W.5) failed to identify Pannalal and Gama Ram, and could only identify Madan Singh, Yashpal Singh and Narpat Singh. The defence emphasised that all these accused (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (18 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] were residents of the same village and were well known to the witnesses, thereby rendering the identification proceedings meaningless.
5.19. Furthermore, the record reveals that none of the said witnesses disclosed the identity of the assailants when Prithviraj (P.W.6) and Vijay Singh (P.W.11) arrived at their home and took Kapura to the hospital. According to the appellants, this omission in the earliest version creates a serious doubt about the subsequent attribution of specific roles and names during trial. 5.20. On the basis of these infirmities, it was contended that the ocular account furnished by P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 is not reliable, and the conviction based upon such doubtful evidence cannot be sustained.
5.21. The appellants also placed reliance on the testimony of Dr. Roop Singh (P.W.1), who conducted the medical examination and post-mortem. In his statement, P.W.1 admitted that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not consistent with the weapons alleged to have been used during the assault. He further clarified that the injuries were largely superficial in nature, and no blood was detected on the weapons recovered, except on the spear allegedly recovered from Narpat Singh. Even in respect of the said spear, the medical evidence did not establish that such a weapon was actually used in the commission of the offence. On the strength of the above, it was submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular version put forward by the (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (19 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] prosecution, thereby creating a material doubt in the prosecution case.
6. Per contra, Mr. Pawan Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor with Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, and Mr. Suresh Kumbhat with Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, appearing on behalf of the complainant party, opposed the appeals and supported the impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence.
6.1. It was submitted at the outset that the information under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is required to be given to the officer in charge of a police station, and therefore the Rojnamcha entry (Ex.D.19), recorded at the Lakhara outpost on the basis of the information given by Prithviraj (P.W.6), cannot be treated as the first information report in the eye of law. A police outpost does not fall within the definition of "police station" under Section 2(o) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Ex.P.3, lodged by Raghunath Singh at Police Station Sadri, constitutes the valid and proper FIR. It was further contended that Ex.P.3 was promptly recorded the same night, at 10:30 p.m., and the minor time gap stood satisfactorily explained in light of the circumstances that the priority of the family members was to arrange transport and rush the injured to the hospital. The appellants' argument regarding delay, it was urged, is without substance.
6.2. In respect of the alleged delay in lodging Ex.P.3, it was contended that the same is immaterial. Raghunath Singh, being the elder member of the family, had first to attend to the (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (20 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] immediate needs of his grievously injured brother Hiralal, which included arranging conveyance and taking him to the hospital. The priority of any responsible family elder in such circumstances would naturally be to save the life of the injured rather than to rush to the police station. Thus, the report having been lodged at 10:30 p.m., on the same night of the occurrence, cannot be said to be delayed in a manner so as to cast any doubt on the prosecution case.
6.3. It was further submitted that the existence of long-standing enmity between the complainant party and the accused side has been proved on record. The feud had persisted for nearly four decades, and the appellants had previously attempted to assault and even eliminate the complainant's family members. This background of hostility supplied a strong motive for the appellants to commit the present crime. The presence of such a deep-rooted animosity, instead of being a ground for false implication as urged by the defence, is in fact a significant circumstance corroborating the prosecution case.
6.4. As regards the argument that Prithviraj (P.W.6) did not immediately use the tractor for transporting Hiralal, it was urged that this argument overlooks the medical condition of the injured. The witnesses have consistently stated that Hiralal had sustained multiple fractures and grievous bleeding injuries, and therefore his condition was extremely fragile. Transporting him on a tractor, which is a rough and open vehicle, could have further aggravated his condition. Thus, the family members and witnesses, in the (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (21 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] ordinary course of prudence, preferred to arrange a proper motor vehicle for taking him to the hospital. This explanation is natural and fully accounts for the time taken in arranging conveyance. 6.5. The contention of the appellants that the eyewitnesses were related to the deceased and hence "interested witnesses" was refuted. It was urged that merely because a witness is related to the deceased or belongs to the complainant party does not by itself render such testimony unreliable or inadmissible. The settled position of law is that the evidence of a related witness cannot be discarded on that ground alone; rather, it requires careful scrutiny, and if found credible, it can form the basis of conviction. In the present case, the testimonies of P.W.6 Prithviraj, P.W.7 Jai Singh, and P.W.10 Jogendra Singh are natural, consistent with the occurrence, and inspire confidence, and thus cannot be brushed aside merely on account of their relationship with the deceased. 6.6. It was next submitted that the incident occurred in a village setting, in the late evening hours, where people ordinarily move about for agricultural and domestic chores. In such a background, the presence of the eyewitnesses at or near the place of occurrence cannot be termed as doubtful or unnatural. On the contrary, their presence was most natural, as they either belonged to the same family or resided in the vicinity, and were thus in a position to witness the assault. The criticism that their account is improbable or fabricated does not hold merit in the rural context, where close-knit community life and proximity to the fields and water bodies make such presence not only possible but expected.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (22 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] 6.7. As regards the medical evidence, it was submitted that the opinion of the doctor (P.W.1 Dr. Roop Singh) does not in any manner demolish the prosecution case. The presence or absence of bloodstains on the recovered weapons cannot be treated as conclusive proof either way, as such stains may get wiped off or lost due to passage of time and handling. Similarly, the doctor's observation that some injuries were superficial does not negate the fact that the cumulative effect of the multiple blows caused the death of both victims. Medical evidence is corroborative in nature and is intended to support, not supplant, the direct testimony of eyewitnesses. In the present case, the ocular evidence is clear and consistent, and the medical findings are not in contradiction but broadly in consonance with the manner of assault alleged.
6.8. With respect to the argument regarding the Test Identification Parade, it was submitted that the minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence do not vitiate the prosecution case. Smt. Gattu (P.W.3), Bhiki (P.W.5), and Lakma (P.W.4) were consistent in their broad account of the assault on Kapura. The fact that some witnesses failed to identify all the accused or committed minor errors during the TIP, which was held after a lapse of time, is not fatal to the prosecution. It is well- settled that TIP is only a corroborative exercise and not substantive evidence; what carries weight is the identification of the accused by the witnesses in Court during trial, which was duly established.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (23 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] 6.9. It was further contended that the defence argument that the accused and the witnesses belonged to the same village and hence there was no necessity of TIP is self-defeating. On the contrary, the familiarity of the witnesses with the accused rules out the possibility of mistaken identity. The discrepancies in identification, if any, only go to the margin and do not discredit the core version that Kapura was assaulted by members of the accused party in furtherance of the same enmity. 6.10. It was lastly urged that the testimonies of the material witnesses, when read as a whole, are consistent, cogent, and mutually corroborative. The core of the prosecution case, namely that both Hiralal and Kapura were waylaid and assaulted by the accused party owing to long-standing enmity, has remained firm throughout. Minor contradictions or omissions, which are bound to occur when witnesses depose after a long passage of time, do not detract from the overall reliability of their account. The consistent narration by P.W.6 Prithviraj, P.W.7 Jai Singh, P.W.10 Jogendra Singh, along with the corroboration furnished by P.W.3 Gattu, P.W.4 Lakma, and P.W.5 Bhiki regarding the assault on Kapura, establishes the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. 6.11. On the cumulative strength of the above, it was submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The motive arising from a long-standing feud, the consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the corroboration by medical and circumstantial evidence, and the identification of the assailants taken together form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. The minor (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (24 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] discrepancies highlighted by the defence are natural in human testimony and do not affect the substratum of the case. The learned Trial Court, upon a proper appreciation of the evidence, has rightly recorded the conviction and awarded sentence, which calls for no interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
8. This Court observes that the first contention urged on behalf of the appellants is that Ex.P.3, the written report lodged by Raghunath Singh, is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C., since Ex.D.19 Rojnamcha entry already existed prior to it. This argument does not persuade us. Ex.D.19, being a general Rojnamcha entry recorded at the police outpost on the basis of preliminary information, cannot be equated with a First Information Report under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The settled legal position is that information under Section 154 has to be given to the officer in charge of the police station, and not merely to an outpost constable. Thus, Ex.P.3, reduced into writing and duly signed, constitutes the FIR in law.
8.1. This Court however finds that the fact remains that Ex.D.19 was the earliest contemporaneous account given by Prithviraj (P.W.6), an alleged eyewitness, immediately after the occurrence. In that account, only two names -- Prabhu Singh and Bhopal Singh -- surfaced, with the vague addition "and associates." The subsequent Ex.P.3, lodged belatedly at 10:30 p.m., contains a detailed roll-call of accused persons with weapons, which appears to be a product of deliberation. This Court finds that the drastic (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (25 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] improvement between Ex.D.19 and Ex.P.3 creates a grave suspicion as to the authenticity of the latter.
9. This Court further observes that the delay in lodging Ex.P.3 has not been satisfactorily explained. The prosecution urged that the priority of the family was to take the injured to the hospital. However, it is admitted on record that senior police officials, including the Dy.S.P. (P.W.25) and the S.H.O., were present at the hospital much before 10:30 p.m., and that the complainant as well as the alleged eyewitnesses were also present. In such circumstances, the omission to record a detailed version contemporaneously cannot be brushed aside. The belated lodging of Ex.P.3 gave opportunity for deliberation and embellishment, which undermines the spontaneity of the report.
10. This Court also observes that the earliest account furnished to the police constable at Lakhara outpost by P.W.9 Mag Singh is also significant. He categorically deposed that only "Prabhu Singh and Bhopal Singh and their associates" were named. None of the present appellants were mentioned. This contemporaneous version corroborates the defence contention that the subsequent array of accused in Ex.P.3 was the result of afterthought.
11. This Court further observes that the testimonies of the three principal eyewitnesses -- P.W.6 Prithviraj, P.W.7 Jai Singh, and P.W.10 Jogendra Singh -- are riddled with contradictions, improbabilities, and instances of unnatural conduct. P.W.6 himself conceded that he did not intervene during the assault and could not confirm whether P.W.7 or P.W.10 were present at the spot. P.W.7 admitted that his father never disclosed the names of the (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (26 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] assailants to him, which is wholly unnatural if Hiralal was conscious. P.W.10 admitted that he only saw the accused from a distance of 50 feet and did not raise alarm or summon help. This Court finds that the collective passivity of close relatives in the face of a murderous assault is inconsistent with natural human conduct, rendering their presence doubtful.
12. This Court also observes that the evidence relating to the assault on Kapura, as deposed by P.W.3 Gattu, P.W.4 Lakma, and P.W.5 Bhiki, suffers from material infirmities. None of them disclosed the names of the assailants when the injured was taken to the hospital. Their identification of the accused was belated and marred by errors. The Test Identification Parade, held after two and a half years, was wholly unreliable since the accused were not kept baparda and were admittedly known to the witnesses as co- villagers. This Court finds that such defective identification cannot be safely relied upon.
13. This Court further observes that the prosecution placed heavy reliance on motive arising from longstanding enmity. While the existence of hostility between the parties is established, such enmity cuts both ways. It may furnish a motive for the accused to attack, but it equally provides a strong ground for false implication of a large number of adversaries. In the present case, the manner in which the prosecution story expanded from two named individuals in Ex.D.19 to a full roster of accused in Ex.P.3, coupled with the contradictions in testimony, suggests that enmity has, in fact, resulted in false implication.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (27 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
14. This Court also observes that the explanation advanced by the prosecution for not using the tractor to transport the injured Hiralal is also unconvincing. In rural settings, a tractor is the most readily available means of transport. The story that it was abandoned in favour of a distant car appears artificial, particularly when Hiralal's condition was precarious. This improbability casts further doubt on the version of P.W.6 regarding his movements after the incident.
15. This Court further observes that the conduct of P.W.7 Jai Singh is highly unnatural. Despite claiming to have seen his father grievously assaulted, he neither raised alarm to alert villagers nor attempted to secure immediate assistance. His admission that his father did not disclose the names of the assailants further contradicts the prosecution version and undermines his reliability.
16. This Court also observes that P.W.10 Jogendra Singh, being the nephew of the deceased, admitted to seeing the accused following Hiralal from a close distance, yet neither cautioned him nor sought help from others in the village. His passive conduct, inconsistent with normal human behaviour, raises serious doubts about his presence at the scene of occurrence.
17. This Court further observes that P.W.9 Mag Singh, a constable from Lakara outpost, deposed that he only heard the names of Bhopal Singh and Prabhu Singh, without mention of the other accused. The other constable on duty gave no account of any disclosure. This omission from independent police witnesses at the earliest point indicates that the identities of most of the accused were not known at the time of occurrence.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (28 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988]
18. This Court also observes that the cumulative effect of the infirmities in the prosecution case -- namely, the doubtful status of Ex.P.3 as the FIR, the unexplained delay, the contradictions and unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses, the unreliable identification evidence, and the lack of corroboration from medical findings -- leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
19. It is a settled proposition of law that where the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions, inconsistencies and absence of corroboration, the benefit of doubt must enure to the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants were responsible for causing the fatal injury to the deceased(s).
20. This Court further observes that when a judgment of conviction is challenged before the Appellate Court, it becomes imperative to undertake a proper and independent appreciation of the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court. The power of the Appellate Court in this regard is statutorily enshrined under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides as follows:
"386. Powers of the Appellate Court.--
(b) in an appeal from a conviction--
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or
(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (29 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same."
21. This Court also observes that as provided under Section 386(b)(i) Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has the power to reverse the findings of the conviction, so as to acquit the accused. At this juncture, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 15 SCC 263, as hereunder:-
"9. At this juncture, we are obliged to state that though it may be difficult to state that the judgment suffers from sans reasons, yet it is not at all difficult to say that the reasons ascribed are really apology for reasons. If we allow ourselves to say so, one may ascribe certain reasons which seem to be reasons but the litmus test is to give seemly and condign reasons either to sustain or overturn the judgment. The filament of reasoning must logically flow from requisite analysis, but, unfortunately, the said exercise has not been carried out. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Padam Singh v. State of U.P [(2000) 1 SCC 621:
2000 SCC (Cri) 285], wherein a two-Judge Bench, while dealing with the duty of the appellate court, has expressed thus: (SCC p. 625, para 2) "2. ... It is the duty of an appellate court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. It must be remembered that the appellate court, like the trial court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right through until he is held guilty by the final Court of Appeal and that presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (30 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court."
(emphasis supplied)
10. In Rama v. State of Rajasthan[(2002) 4 SCC 571 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 829], the Court has stated about the duty of the appellate court in the following terms: (SCC p. 572, para 4) "4. ... It is well settled that in a criminal appeal, a duty is enjoined upon the appellate court to reappraise the evidence itself and it cannot proceed to dispose of the appeal upon appraisal of evidence by the trial court alone especially when the appeal has been already admitted and placed for final hearing. Upholding such a procedure would amount to negation of valuable right of appeal of an accused, which cannot be permitted under law."
11. In Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek v. State of Gujarat [(2012) 11 SCC 312: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 636], relying on the pronouncements in Padam Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 621 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 285] and Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 720:
1996 SCC (Cri) 848], this Court has reiterated the principle pertaining to the duty of the appellate court.
12. Recently, a three-Judge Bench in Majjal v. State of Haryana [(2013) 6 SCC 798] has ruled thus: (SCC p. 800, para 7) "7. It was necessary for the High Court to consider whether the trial court's assessment of the evidence and its opinion that the appellant must be convicted deserve to be confirmed. This exercise is necessary because the personal liberty of an accused is curtailed because of the conviction.
The High Court must state its reasons why it is accepting the evidence on record. The High Court's concurrence with the trial court's view would be acceptable only if it is supported by reasons. In such appeals it is a court of first appeal. Reasons cannot be cryptic. By this, we do not mean that the High Court is expected to write an unduly long treatise. The judgment may be short but must reflect proper application of mind to vital evidence and important submissions which go to the root of the matter."
22. This Court also observes that looking into the overall factual matrix and the circumstances of the case as well as the evidence and the precedent law, as placed before us, it is a fit case to (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (31 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] exercise the power conferred under Section 386(b) Cr.P.C., which pertains to the reversal of a finding from conviction to acquittal.
23. Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, in Sessions Case No. 58/1984 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Narpat Singh & Ors.) and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali, in Sessions Case No. 70/1999 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Singh), whereby the accused- appellants have been convicted and sentenced are quashed and set aside. To reiterate, since the appeals having already stood abated qua the deceased appellants Bhopal Singh S/o Guman Singh, Bhopal Singh S/o Sher Singh, Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, and Prabhu Singh S/o Guman Singh, the present adjudication is confined only to the surviving appellants. Consequently, the surviving accused- appellants, namely, Narpat Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Madan Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Yashpal Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, Gena Ram S/o Pithaji, Pannalal S/o Pemaji, and Inder Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, are acquitted of all the charges against them. As they are already on bail, they need not surrender; their bail bonds stand discharged.
24. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S., each of the surviving accused-appellants are hereby directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38790-DB] (32 of 32) [CRLA-275/1988] Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond each in the like amount before the learned Trial court which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the said accused-appellants shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as and when called upon to do so.
25. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record was already returned to learned Trial Court.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J. (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J. SKant/-
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 03:25:35 PM) (Downloaded on 18/09/2025 at 09:44:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)