Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tar Singh And Ors vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:1855-Db) on 13 January, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 447/1987
Lal Chand S/o Shri Piru Ram by caste Sonar, R/o Anoopgarh,
Tehsil Sangaria, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 455/1987
1. Roop Singh S/o Jogendra Singh, By caste Jat Sikh, R/o
Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Abated).
2. Tar Singh S/o Harnek Singh By caste Majbi, R/o Guru K, P.S.
Sangat Mandi, District Bhatinda (Punjab).
3. Janta Singh S/o Shyam Singh @ Fauji, By caste Majbi, R/o
Haripura, District Sri Ganganagar. (Abated).
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Ms. Anjali Kaushik &
Mr. Harvardhan Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA Judgment 13/01/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor on the basis of report dated 01.08.2025 sent by SHO police station Sangariya District Hanumangarh submits that out of the aforesaid accused appellants, Roop Singh S/o Jogendra Singh and Janta Singh S/o Shyam Singh @ Fauji have passed away.
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 09:06:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (2 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987]
3. The report dated 01.08.2025 is taken on record and the appeals against the appellants Roop Singh S/o Jogendra Singh and Janta Singh S/o Shyam Singh @ Fauji stand abated.
4. Heard the appeals of the accused appellants- Tar Singh and Lal Chand.
5. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 30.10.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Hanumangarh (Camp Sangariya) in Sessions Case No.61/1985, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order.
6. Briefly noted the facts in the instant appeals are that on the basis of statement (parcha bayan) dated 18.03.1985 (Ex.12) submitted by PW-8 (Gurdas Ram), the FIR (Ex.13) was lodged at Police Station Sangariya on 18.03.1985 at 8 am. In the statement (parcha bayan), the PW-8- Gurdas Ram stated that he is running a grocery shop at Haripura. He stated that his younger brother Bheem Chand was residing along with his family at Abohar. A day before the incident, his brother Bheem Chand came to meet him at Haripura and when PW-8-Gurdas Ram was sleeping in the shop whereas his brother Bheem Chand was sleeping behind the Kotha of shop, then at the midnight, he heard a noise of gun shot as well as noise of his brother Bheem Chand that 'Maar Dia Maar Dia'. When he opened the door and lit the torch, then he saw the persons of his village namely Janta Singh S/o Shyam Singh @ Fauji and Roop Singh S/o Jogendra Singh and two other persons to whom he can identify. It was further stated that as soon as he seen them, the aforesaid persons fled away by opening the door. He further stated that he found his brother Bheem Chand on the (Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 09:06:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (3 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987] floor and in some time he died. He further submitted that from the left side of the chest of his brother Bheem Chand the blood was oozing and when he shouted, then Daulat Ram and Darshan Singh came on the site. Thus, ultimately it was sated that his brother Bheem Chand was killed by Janta Singh S/o Shyam Singh and Roop Singh S/o Jodengra Singh and two other persons by inflicting fire arm injury.
7. After lodging of the FIR, the Investigating Agency recovered certain articles from the place of incident and the same were exhibited. After completion of the investigation, the investigating agency submitted chargesheet against the accused Roop Singh for the offences under Sections 460 and 302 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and against Janta Singh, Tar Singh and Lal Chand for the offence under Sections 460 and 302/34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed the charges against the aforesaid accused persons for the offence aforesaid and they claimed trial.
8. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and got exhibited 37 exhibits.
9. The statement of accused appellants under Section 313 CrPC were also recorded wherein, they have stated that they have falsely been implicated int the present case. In support of their defence, they have also examined DW1-Vipin Sethi.
10. Thereafter, learned trial court framed as many as 5 issues/points for determination and ultimately vide judgment dated 30.10.1987 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the offences aforesaid. Hence, the present appeals.
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 09:06:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (4 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987]
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that the present appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case as there is no iota of evidence by which the present appellants can be said to have been involved in the present incident. He further submits that in the statement of PW-8 (Gurdas Ram) exhibited as Exhibit 12, the names of the present appellants- Tar Singh and Lal Chand had not been mentioned. He also submits that the names of the present appellants have been subsequently introduced by way of an improvement in the statement.
12. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per the statement of PW-8, he has seen Tar Singh and Lal Chand when they visited his shop during course of the day for purchasing beedis along with two other persons namely Roop Singh and Janta Singh. He further submits that while the four persons visited the shop of Gurdas Ram, they were taking the names of the present appellants, therefore, he could recognize them while they were fleeing from the place of incident.
13. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that if PW-8 (Gurdas Ram) had seen the present appellants then he could recognize them by their names then why their names were not mentioned in the statement Ex.12. He further submits that the explanation given for not submitting their names in the statement Ex.12 is not palatable and introducing their names in the subsequent statement is nothing but over implication of the appellants in the present case. He also submits that even if the statement of PW-8 is taken on its face value, then he has stated in his cross- examination that after hearing the noise of the gun shot and yelp (Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 09:06:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (5 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987] of the deceased Bheem Chand, he opened the gate and went to Kotha along with a torch and in the light of the torch, he has seen the four accused persons leaving the place of incident.
14. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that once the PW-8 (Gurdas Ram) has seen the four persons leaving the place of incident in the light of torch, then certainly he was unable to see their faces as it has come in the statement that their faces were towards the gate. He also submits that as per the statement given by PW-8 (Gurdas Ram), it is impossible to recognize a person while he is fleeing from the spot by looking at his back. He further submits that PW-8 (Gurdas Ram) has tried to improve his version in the subsequent statements by implicating the present appellants in the present case.
15. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that there is no other evidence available on record, which is cogent, convincing and worth credible to assume that the present appellants were present at the time of incident except the statement of PW-8 (Gurdas Ram). He further submits that despite the fact that Gurudas Ram in his statement Ex.12 has mentioned that the two other persons can be recognized by him, if they are brought before him, despite this statement, the Test Identification Parade of the present appellants was not conducted. He further submits that even the independent witness PW-2 to PW-7 have not supported the prosecution case as they have been declared hostile.
16. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that as far as the evidence of foot mould is concerned, the learned Trial Court has also taken note of it and discarded the same. He further submits that except mere presence of the appellants, no overt act has (Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 09:06:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (6 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987] been attributed to the present appellants and a single gun shot injury was attributed to Roop Singh, who has passed away during pendency of the present appeals. He, therefore, prays that the present appeals may be allowed and the judgment dated 30.10.1987 may be quashed and set aside.
17. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the judgment dated 30.10.1987 submits that the testimony of PW-8 (Gurdas Ram), who is the solitary eye witness, is worth credence and is only reliable. He further submits that in the Ex.12 as well as the statements recorded by the Police before the learned Trial Court, it is maintained by PW-8 (Gurdas Ram) that the two other persons, who fled from the spot were none other than Tar Singh and Lal Chand, however, learned Public Prosecutor very fairly submits that no overt act has been attributed to the present appellants.
18. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that there is ample evidence against the present appellants to prove that the allegations levelled in the present case by the prosecution and the judgment was passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality. He, therefore, prays that the appeals may be dismissed.
19. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the impugned judgment dated 30.10.1987.
20. It is noted that the statement given by PW-8 (Gurdas Ram) to the Police on 18.03.1985 clearly shows that his brother Bheem Chand visited his shop and while he was sleeping in Kotha, Janta Singh and Roop Singh along with two other persons trespassed (Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 09:06:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (7 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987] into his Kotha and fired a gun shot upon his brother. After hearing the noise of the gun shot and yelp of Bheem Chand, he opened the gate and saw in the light of torch that four persons running away from the place of incident. In the light of the torch, he could recognize Janta Singh and Roop Singh, however, he failed to name the two other persons i.e. the present appellants. As per the post mortem report, there is only a single fire arm injury, which is a cause of his brother's death. PW-8 (Gurdas Ram), in his statement, has stated that while his brother was sleeping in Kotha, on hearing the gun shot, he opened the door and saw in the light of torch that Janta Singh and Roop Singh were fleeing from the place of incident and in his statement, he also stated that two other persons fleeing from the place of incident were the present appellants- Tar Sing and Lal Chand. The names of those two persons are conspicuously missing in the Ex.12 more particularly, when he has authoritatively stated in his statement that all the four persons visited his shop during the course of day while they were talking to each other, he could hear the names of the present appellants.
21. It is highly improbable that if somebody knows the names of the persons to whom he has seen during the course of day, he could not recognize them and despite that he fails to name them while giving the statement before the Police after the incident. The explanation for not mentioning the names of the present appellants to the Police is not believable. In the considered opinion of this Court, the introduction of the two names of the present appellants in the subsequent statements is nothing but an improvisation of the earlier statement in order to falsely implicate (Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 09:06:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (8 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987] the present appellants. In the statement of PW-8 (Gurdas Ram), he also stated that while they were leaving the spot, he has seen the four persons leaving and categorically mentioned that while they were fleeing the place of incident, he has seen the back of all the four persons, therefore, if a person has not seen the person who is fleeing the spot by their face, then it is highly improbable that he could recognize them while they are fleeing the spot by looking their back more particularly in the light of torch.
22. Further the prosecution failed to get the Test Identification Parade of the present appellants despite the fact that the complainant has mentioned in the Ex.12 that he could recognize the present appellants, if they are brought before him. In the statement of PW-8, he has categorically mentioned that fire arm injury was attributed to Janta Singh and Roop Singh, who during the pendency of the present appeals have passed away. In any case, no overt act has been reported against the present appellants. The other evidence in the form of foot mould taken by the prosecution has been discarded by the learned Trial Court. The post mortem report also shows the cause of death to be a single fire arm injury. PW-3 Daulat Ram and PW-5 Darshan Singh, who as per the statement of PW-8 were called at the place of incident by Gurudas Ram have not supported the prosecution case and they have declared hostile.
23. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no material evidence to implicate the present appellants in the present case and, therefore, we are of the view that the judgment dated 30.10.1987 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh (Camp Sangariya) of convicting the present (Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 09:06:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1855-DB] (9 of 9) [CRLA-447/1987] appellants- Lal Chand and Tar Singh is not correct. Consequently, the present appeals of the accused appellants- Lal Chand and Tar Singh merit acceptance and the same are allowed and the judgment dated 30.10.1987 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh (Camp Sangariya) is quashed and set- aside qua the present appellants. The appellants- Lal Chand and Tar Singh are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
24. Since the accused-appellants are on bail, therefore, they need not surrender before the Jail authorities, if they are not required in any other case. Their bail bonds are discharged.
25. Record be sent back to the learned trial Court forthwith. (CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 120-121-SunilS/Shahenshah/-
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 11:33:34 AM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 09:06:23 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)