Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 582/2025
and
(2) D.B. Criminal Appeal No.110/2025
Rakesh S/o Badri Lal Chamar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Chandgarh P.s. Badilyas, Dist. Bhilwara (Lodged In Central Jail,
Chittorgarh)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manju Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh 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 22.01.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was 22.01.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment operative part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2026
1. Although the matter was listed on the application for suspension of sentence, however, with the consent of the parties, the appeal itself was heard on merit and the same was ordered to be reserved.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under section 374(2) Cr.P.C by the accused-appellant Rakesh S/o Shri Badri lal Chamar, against the judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (2 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025] learned District and Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, in Sessions Case No. 91/2022 (CIS No.167/2022), whereby, the accused-appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 and 455 of the IPC and sentenced as under:-.
302 Life imprisonment with a Fine In default of payment of IPC of Rs.25,000/- fine to further undergo six months SI 455 10 years simple In default of payment of IPC imprisonment with a Fine of fine to further undergo Rs.10,000/- three months SI
3. As per the prosecution case, a report was lodged by complainant-Ambalal (PW-2) stating therein that on 26.07.2022, at about 1:30 PM, complainant Ambalal returned to home from the school along with his child. His mother, Smt. Chandi Bai, resided in an adjacent room of the same premises. After dropping the child in the house, he went to his mother's room to fetch a basket for feeding the cow. Although, the mother usually kept the door open during daytime, however, on that day the door was found half-closed. Upon opening it, the complainant saw a young man wearing a red shirt assaulting his mother with an axe, having already amputated both of her legs and attempting to remove her silver anklets. The assailant pushed the complainant aside and, in the ensuing panic, fled from the spot, leaving the anklets behind in the room. The complainant entered the room and found his mother lying dead, both legs amputated, and her throat also found slit and tied with a rope. He immediately chased the assailant, but he escaped into the adjoining street. The complainant asserted that he would be able to identify the (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (3 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025] perpetrator upon seeing him. At that time, his uncle's daughter, Ranu Salvi, also reached at the place of occurrence. According to the complainant, the assailant had killed Smt. Chandi Bai in the course of robbing the silver ornaments, worn by her.
4. On the basis of the above report, a formal FIR No.308/22 (Ex.P-05) was registered at Police Station Chittorgarh against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 455 IPC.
5. After completion of investigation, Police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under section 302, 455 and 326 IPC.
6. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Sections 302, 455 and 326 IPC to the accused- appellant, who denied the charge and sought trial.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-43.
8. Accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., during which he stated that the prosecution witnesses were deposing falsely and given false evidence. In his defence, the accused-appellant did not produce any documents and evidence.
9. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid vide judgment dated 07.08.2024. Hence the present appeal.
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (4 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025]
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective. There existed material contradictions, manipulations, and irregularities in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses; however, despite these glaring infirmities, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the accused- appellant, rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in the eye of law.
11. She further submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the appellant committed the alleged offences, and the prosecution story is riddled with inconsistencies. The appellant was not present at the place of occurrence, and the complainant (PW-02) himself admitted that he saw one person only for a moment. Such doubtful and uncorroborated identification required careful scrutiny along with other material evidence.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has no connection with the alleged incident. He is not named in the FIR, there are no eyewitnesses of the occurrence, and all prosecution witnesses are hearsay. It is argued that neither appellant committed murder by trespassing into the complainant's house, nor did he amputate the legs of the deceased with an axe in order to steal her silver anklets. Learned counsel further submitted that prosecution failed to prove that the alleged pliers purchased from the shop of PW-01 Tahir Bohra was used for commission of crime by the appellant and the statement of this witness is untrustworthy, (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (5 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025] unsupported by documentary proof, and therefore inadmissible. The CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution also does not identify the appellant or place him at the scene of occurrence.
13. It is further argued that the identification of the appellant by the PW-01 Tahir Bohra, complainant Ambalal (PW-02) and Naina @ Ranu (PW-03) is wholly unsafe, as all of them identified the accused only after he was shown to them at the police station when he was arrested. Such dock identification, influenced by police presence, cannot establish guilt. It is therefore submitted that the identification does not prove that the appellant committed the murder by severing the legs of the deceased with an axe.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellant did not provide any disclosure or verification leading to the recovery of any article from the place of occurrence. The investigating officer alone inspected the scene, including the bathroom, and there was no discovery attributable to the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
15. Further, it is submitted that the prosecution's reliance on the statement of PW-03, Naina @ Ranu, is wholly misplaced, as she is a relative of the complainant and admitted in cross- examination that she had not witnessed the incident and only saw the appellant briefly on the public road. The Trial Court, however, accepted her statement without testing its reliability, contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.
16. Regarding the alleged recovery of silver anklets, it is submitted that even the complainant admitted in the FIR that (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (6 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025] the articles were found lying in his own house and not in the possession of the appellant. Similarly, the alleged recovery of the axe, iron rod and iron pliers is not proved, as the prosecution failed to establish exclusive possession, and PW- 01's claim that the tools were sold to the appellant is uncorroborated and inherently unreliable.
17. Learned counsel further argued that no call detail records or mobile location of the appellant were produced to establish his presence near the scene of occurrence. The appellant was arrested merely from a nearby locality on suspicion. Serious discrepancies also exist regarding the timing of death. The post mortem was conducted at 05:00 PM the post mortem report (Ex. P-27), mentions the duration of death between 2-6 hours, which contradicts the prosecution timeline, but the learned Court below ignored this material contradiction.
18. It is further submitted that the prosecution case is based on an alleged extra-judicial confession which is neither proved nor corroborated. Since the appellant has not made any such confession, therefore, the reliance made on unsubstantiated oral assertions is impermissible in law. The record of the Investigating Officer itself fails to support the complainant's story.
19. Learned Counsel submitted that in absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, call detail evidence, if any, cannot be relied upon. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive. She further contended that it is admitted that the appellant had no prior (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (7 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025] grudge against the deceased, and in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significant importance. The learned Trial Court failed to approach the matter with the required care and caution. Learned Trial Court passed a cursory and non-speaking judgment without correlating oral evidence with documentary evidence. The appellant, who was on bail during trial owing to inconsistencies in the prosecution case, is a young student of borderline age, and continued incarceration will gravely prejudice his future.
20. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged recovery of the motorcycle of the accused from the vicinity of the place of occurrence does not firmly establish that the accused-appellant has committed the crime. She submitted that mere presence or recovery of a vehicle from a nearby area, in the absence of any cogent and independent evidence proving its use in the commission of the offence, cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance. According to learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to conclusively prove that the recovery of the said motorcycle was connected with the murder of Smt. Chandi Bai.
21. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the Trial Court are vague, perverse, contrary to settled principles of law, and based on unreliable, hearsay and uncorroborated evidence. She, therefore, prays that the appeal of the appellant may be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2024 may be quashed and set aside.
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (8 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025]
22. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and has supported the prosecution case set out before the learned trial court and he submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 & 455 IPC vide judgment dated 07.08.2024.
23. We have considered the submissions made before this Court and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case, including the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2024.
24. PW-2 Ambalal complainant in his statements deposed that the incident occurred about ten months prior at around 1:30 PM. In the statement he stated that he had returned from school after picking up his child. After leaving the child at home, he proceeded to his mother's room to fetch grass kept for the cow. When he entered the room, he saw a boy aged about 25-26 years, who pushed him aside and fled away. He then noticed that both the legs of his mother, Smt. Chandi Bai, had been amputated and silver anklets were lying on the ground. A rope was tied around her neck. The assailant was wearing a red T-shirt and jeans. He stated that he chased him, but the assailant took another route. Neighbours had gathered on hearing the commotion; Renu (Reena) and other persons also came on spot. He further stated that when the assailant's pushed him, blood-stained hands left marks on his clothes. He further stated that thereafter, when the police examined CCTV footage, he was informed that it is the accused-appellant who was found sitting in the bathroom on the roof of Satyanarayan's house, from where he was apprehended.
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (9 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025] In the Test Identification Parade (Ex.P.8), the said witness has identified the accused appellant Rakesh.
25. PW-3 Naina @ Ranu stated that the incident occurred on Tuesday, 26.07.2022, at about 1:30 PM. She stated that at the time of occurrence, she had returned from school and was changing clothes at home. The deceased, Smt. Chandi bai, was her great-grandmother and resided in the outer room of their house. While she was near the gate getting her hair dressed, she saw a man, who was roaming in the area two or three times. She presumed him to be a labourer from the nearby construction site. At that moment, her grandfather Ambalal shouted, and raised an alarm. She then saw a man running away after pushing Ambalal. She further stated that she identified that person in court. She stated that the said man ran and hide in the house of one Sharmaji from where he was apprehended. In the Test Identification Parade (Ex.P.9), the said witness has identified the accused appellant Rakesh.
26. PW-1 Tahir Bohra, an electrical shop owner situated at Diwakar Nagar on Main Chamtikheda Road, deposed in his statement that in July 2022, one person came to his shop to buy pliers. Initially, the person requested his personal pliers, but upon refusal, he purchased a new pair, for which PW-1 issued a bill in the name of "Rakesh Bhilwara." He handed over a photocopy of the bill to the police, which was exhibited as Ex.P-02. PW-1 stated that at his shop CCTV cameras have also been installed. The police taken the footage into a pen drive in his presence, and he issued a (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (10 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025] certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, marked as Exhibit P-01. He identified the accused in test identification parade present in court as the person who purchased the pliers, which was exhibited as Ex-P4.
27. PW-10 Satyanarayan stated in his statement that he resides at Diwakar Nagar, Chamtikheda, and has a CCTV camera installed outside his house. The police obtained the footage from him after informing him that a murder had taken place behind his house. He stated that the police apprehended a boy from Sanjayji's house. The CCTV footage showed a boy running, and the police took the footage in a pen drive. He issued a certificate, which is Exhibit P-24. As he did not fully support the prosecution story, he was declared hostile; however, he admitted that the police had apprehended a boy from Sanjay's house and that the CCTV footage showed a boy running.
28. PW-13 Vandan Joshi deposed that he had a CCTV camera installed at his house at Diwakar Nagar, Chamtikheda. He provided CCTV footage dated 26.07.2022 to the Police Station Officer, Chittorgarh, in a pen drive. He identified the photographs extracted from the footage showing a person wearing a red shirt, marked as Exhibit P-30. He stated that he appended his signature over certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, which is Exhibit P-31. He stated that he had seen the person depicted in the photographs.
29. PW-5 Bhimraj stated that the incident occurred on 26.07.2022 at around 1:00-2:00 PM. His house is situated near the place of occurrence. Upon hearing a commotion around 2:00 (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (11 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025] PM, he went to Ambalal's house, where he saw that both the legs of the deceased were amputated. Several persons had gathered before he arrived. They informed him that a boy wearing a red shirt had fled and that he was later found hiding in a house nearby, from where he was apprehended by the police.
30. PW-17 Motilal (Investigating Officer) Motilal stated in his statement that upon receiving information, he reached at the spot and conducted the investigation. He seized a blood-stained axe, a blood-stained wooden stick, an iron rod, a wooden rolling pin, a wooden plank, and two silver anklets from the scene of occurrence under Seizure Memo Exhibit P-6. Blood-stained floor material was collected using gauze under Exhibit P-7. The blood- stained kurti and scarf of the deceased were seized vide Exhibit P-
12.
31. He further stated that after the incident, the accused was apprehended from the bathroom of Sanjay Sharma's house; from where he seized a blood-stained cotton ball vide Exhibit P-15. After arrest, the blood-stained shirt, jeans and shoes worn by the accused were seized through Exhibit P-26. These facts were corroborated by PW-2 Ambalal, PW-5 Bhimraj, and PW-7 Anand.
32. PW-17 further stated that at the time of postmortem he seized the rope tied around the neck of the deceased; vide Exhibit P-16, which is corroborated by PW-2 Ambalal, PW-5 Bhimraj and PW-7 Anand. The Panchayatnama (Exhibit P-10) also mentioned the cause of death as suffocation. PW-11 Dr. Sanjay Pareekh, who conducted the postmortem, confirmed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (12 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025]
33. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory Report (Exhibit P-41), the blood-stained axe, wooden block, two iron rods, wooden rolling pin, two silver anklets, the blood-stained floor sample collected on gauze, the blood-stained cotton swab recovered from the bathroom where the accused was found hiding, as well as the blood-stained shirt, jeans and shoes worn by the accused at the time of his arrest, and the blood-stained kurti and shawl of the deceased, were all found to contain human blood of the same blood group "AB". The accused has offered no explanation whatsoever for the presence of human blood of identical blood group on the articles seized from the scene of crime and on the clothes recovered from his person.
34. The recovery of the weapon of offence--namely, the iron axe
--along with the wooden mallet, iron rods, wooden rolling pin, the silver anklets worn by the deceased, and the blood-stained floor material from the room, all bearing human blood of the same group, corroborates the prosecution version that the accused attempted to remove the silver anklets from the legs of the deceased for the purpose of robbery. When he was unable to remove them, he amputated the deceased's legs with the axe, and upon the complainant arriving at the spot, fled leaving the anklets behind. The forensic report, therefore, forms a complete and cogent link in the chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.
35. So far as the question of connecting the accused with the offence by verifying the shop from where he allegedly purchased the pliers is concerned, the Investigating Officer, PW-17 Motilal, (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (13 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025] stated that on the basis of the information furnished by the accused, he verified the purchase by Ex.P.19. This fact stands corroborated by PW-5 Bhimraj and PW-6 Vinit Kumar in their respective depositions. PW-1 Tahir Bohra further testified that on the date of the incident, a boy had purchased pliers from his shop, whom he duly identified as the accused. He also handed over the bill and the CCTV footage of his shop to the police, which clearly demonstrate that the accused had purchased the pliers used in the incident from his shop. The said pliers were seized from the scene of occurrence by the Investigating Officer under Exhibit P-6 at about 3:00 PM immediately after the incident. Significantly, PW- 1 Tahir Bohra was neither cross-examined on this aspect nor was any suggestion put to him disputing the fact that the pliers recovered from the crime scene were purchased from his shop or that no bill had been issued. Thus, the prosecution has satisfactorily established that the pliers recovered from the scene of crime were indeed purchased by the accused from PW-1 Tahir Bohra.
36. The recovery of the motorcycle from the vicinity of the place of occurrence has not been treated by the Trial Court as a standalone circumstance to hold the accused guilty, but only as an ancillary fact forming part of the surrounding circumstances. Even otherwise, the conviction of the appellant does not solely rest upon this recovery. The chain of incriminating evidence against the accused stands independently established through reliable ocular, documentary and forensic evidence. Therefore, the contention that the recovery of the motorcycle is irrelevant or (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (14 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025] insufficient to connect the accused with the commission of crime does not advance the case of the appellant. The submission being devoid of merit is accordingly rejected.
37. Regarding the question of verification of the scene of crime by the accused, the Investigating Officer has stated that he conducted such verification (Exhibit P-17) on the basis of the accused's information (Exhibit P-37). This stands supported by the testimonies of PW-5 Bhimraj and PW-6 Vinit Kumar. PW-17 Motilal further deposed that he prepared the site map (Exhibit P-13), seized a blood-stained axe (Exhibit P-6), and collected bloodstains from the floor (Exhibit P-7) on the very day of the incident. He also admitted in cross-examination that he was already aware of the place of occurrence before the accused allegedly verified the scene. No new fact was discovered nor was any recovery made pursuant to such verification. In these circumstances, the so- called verification of the scene by the accused holds no probative value and cannot, by itself, be relied upon to connect the accused with the crime.
38. The presence of the accused in the CCTV footage captured in the vicinity of the place of occurrence stands duly fortified by the ocular evidence. The accused has failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever regarding his presence near Ambalal's House at the relevant point of time. Admittedly, he is neither a relative nor an acquaintance of Ambalal. In the absence of any plausible explanation from the accused, his unexplained presence in close proximity to the scene of crime constitutes an additional (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4591-DB] (15 of 15) [SOSA-582/2025] incriminating circumstance, strengthening the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution.
39. However, from the overall evidence adduced, it clearly emerges that the accused, after committing lurking house- trespass into the complainant's house with the intent to assault, caused the death of the deceased by amputating her leg with an axe and placing a noose around her neck in order to remove the silver anklets she was wearing. The injuries inflicted, which culminated in the death of the deceased, fully satisfy the ingredients of the offence of murder.
40. On the question of quantum of sentence, we have 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.
41. In view of aforesaid discussion and observation, we find that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offences as mentioned hereinabove and we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of learned trial Court. Hence, impugned judgment dated 07.08.2024 is upheld.
42. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
43. Consequently, the application for suspension of sentence also stands rejected.
44. Office is directed to send the record to the learned trial Court forthwith.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 39-Kartik/C.P.Goyal/-
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:49:16 PM) (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:02:42 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)