Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Dharmendra Kumar Nagwal S/O Late Shri ... on 28 August, 2025
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:33800-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 25/2025
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Appellant Versus
1. Dharmendra Kumar Nagwal S/o Late Shri Dulichand Nagwal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ekta Vihar Colony, Chauhano Ka Baira, Dholabhata, Ajmer, Police Station, Alwar Gate, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
2. Kuldeep Nagwal S/o Dulichand Nagwal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ekta Vihar Colony, Chauhano Ka Baira, Dholabhata, Ajmer, Police Station, Alwar Gate, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. Gaurav Nagwal S/o Dhramendra Nagwal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 43/46, Ekta Vihar Colony, Chauhano Ka Baira, Dholabhata, Ajmer, Police Station, Alwar Gate, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, AGA For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshit Parashar for Mr. Aayush Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 26/08/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 28/08/2025 (PER BHUWAN GOYAL J.)
1. The appellant - State of Rajasthan has preferred instant appeal under Section 419(i)(iii) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.75/2022 (State of Rajasthan vs. Dharmendra Kumar Nagwal & ors.), whereby accused-respondent No. 1 was acquitted for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and accused-respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were acquitted for the offences (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:51:46 PM) (Downloaded on 13/09/2025 at 12:19:15 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:33800-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLAD-25/2025] under Sections 330, 342, 323, 364, 365, 302, 201 & 120-B of I.P.C. by extending benefit of doubt.
2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that on 12.12.2021, complainant Pramod Chauhan submitted a written report (Ex.P/2) before the SHO, Police Station Alwar Gate, Ajmer to the effect that Dharmendra Nagwal was his neighbour. On 11.12.2021 at around 3.30 p.m., Dharmendra Nagwal's son Gaurav and his uncle came to his house and were talking to his brother that Vinod had stolen the pipe installed outside their house. Vinod refused to do this and Gaurav and his uncle took Vinod with them with the intention to kill him, asking him to clarify the reality. After which, at about 5.30 p.m., Dharmendra Nagwal, who was also a candidate for Parshad, left his brother Vinod at the old house and came to the new house nearby and told his father that Vinod was injured. They got him treated and bandaged and dropped him at the old house by car. He was working in the field nearby. Then, Gaurav came and said that Vinod was injured, he was treated and left at the home. After which, he and his father went home and saw that Vinod's head was bandaged and he was sleeping, after which his father went to wake him up in the morning and found that Vinod had died. Blood was flowing from the back of Vinod's head. He saw that Vinod had defecated in the bed itself and blood was flowing from his head. His brother Vinod died due to assault by Dharmendra Nagwal, his son Gaurav and uncle together etc..
3. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 336/2021 was registered at Police Station, Alwar Gate, Ajmer for the offences under (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:51:46 PM) (Downloaded on 13/09/2025 at 12:19:15 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:33800-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLAD-25/2025] Sections 365, 302, 201 & 34 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused-respondents Kuldeep Nagwal and Gaurav Nagwal for the offences under Sections 330, 342, 323, 364, 365, 302, 201 & 120-B of I.P.C. and against accused-respondent Dharmendra Kumar Nagwal for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. before the court of concerned Magistrate, who took cognizance of aforesaid offence against accused-respondents and committed the case to the court of Sessions, from where it was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Ajmer (for short 'learned trial court' hereinafter).
4. After hearing arguments on the point of charges, trial court framed charges against accused-respondents for the offences. The accused-respondents did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 33 witnesses and got exhibited Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/71 documents and Article-1 to Article-14 to prove its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused- respondents were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, which they denied and stated that prosecution witnesses gave false evidence; they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The accused-respondents did not produce any oral evidence but exhibited Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4 documents in their defence.
5. Learned trial court, thereafter, proceeded to hear arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, appreciated the evidence available on record and delivered impugned judgment (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:51:46 PM) (Downloaded on 13/09/2025 at 12:19:15 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:33800-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLAD-25/2025] dated 06.07.2023, acquitting accused-respondents for the alleged offences, as stated above. Aggrieved with the same, present appeal has been filed by the appellant - State before this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State of Rajasthan has submitted that prosecution has produced cogent evidence on record and established commission of murder of deceased Vinod by the accused-respondents. The ocular evidence available on record has been corroborated by medical evidence. But the trial Court has erred in not believing testimony deposed by the prosecution witnesses and wrongly acquitted accused- respondents for alleged offences without any cogent reason. He has, therefore, prayed that this appeal filed by the appellant-State may be allowed and the accused-respondents may be convicted and sentenced for the offences alleged against them suitably.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents has opposed appeal and submitted that prosecution utterly failed to establish its case against accused- respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. The material prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. He has also submitted that from the evidence available on record, the prosecution has not been able to establish that so-called injuries on the person of deceased were caused by accused- respondents, rather, from the medical evidence available on record, it has been established that after consuming alcohol, deceased himself fell from height, as a result, he sustained injuries and died. The trial court after appreciating entire material (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:51:46 PM) (Downloaded on 13/09/2025 at 12:19:15 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:33800-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLAD-25/2025] as well as evidence available on record has rightly passed the judgment impugned herein, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through impugned judgment and have minutely sifted through the evidence available on record.
10. In the case in hand, it is an admitted position that there is no eye-witness of the incident and entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.
11. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence has been very well crystalised in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116. A close analysis of said decision would show that following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
12. In the light of these guiding principles, let us examine the evidence in the case in hand.
13. In the present case, the prosecution has come with the case (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:51:46 PM) (Downloaded on 13/09/2025 at 12:19:15 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:33800-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLAD-25/2025] that accused-respondents kidnapped Vinod with intention to cause his murder and murdered him. In this regard, if we peruse the evidence available on record, it reveals that on 11.12.2021, deceased had eaten food and also consumed alcohol, which would be established from his postmortem report (Ex.P/24) as well as Viscera Report (Ex.P/53), in which presence of ethyl alcohol gave positive tests. P.W. 21 - Dr. Sumer Singh who conducted autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased has also admitted in his cross-examination that deceased had consumed alcohol before his death. In the opinion of this Court, if a person receives injuries mentioned in the Postmortem Report (Ex.P/24) which are stated to be sufficient to cause death, then it is not possible in normal course of nature that said person after coming to home, eats food, drinks alcohol and goes to sleep, rather, it is natural in such circumstances that he will inform about his injuries to his family members who would get him treated. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W. 26 - Ritika Chouhan (daughter of deceased) and P.W. 27 - Meena Devi (mother of deceased) in their cross- examination have stated that deceased used to consume alcohol and he got head injury after falling down in drunken condition. This fact has been corroborated from the statement of P.W. 20 - Dr. Pramod Rawal, who initially treated the deceased as well as prescription slip (Ex.P/23). This witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that in the evening at around 4.13 p.m., some people brought a patient, who told that he had fallen from height. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the patient who came, walked on his own and left walking. This (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:51:46 PM) (Downloaded on 13/09/2025 at 12:19:15 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:33800-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLAD-25/2025] factum further stands corroborated from the statement of P.W. 21
- Dr. Sumer Singh, who in his cross-examination, has admitted that if a person in a drunken state falls on his head from a height like a roof onto a hard surface, then possibility of coming head injury shown in the postmortem report cannot be ruled out.
14. It is noteworthy that as per prosecution story, accused- respondents left the deceased to his house after the incident. However, there is no evidence available on record to establish that any family members had seen injuries mentioned in the postmortem report on the person of the deceased, rather, as per evidence on record, after coming to home, deceased had taken meal and consumed alcohol also. Further, a perusal of the statements of P.W. 3 - Devilal (father of deceased), P.W. 5 - Bharti Tanwar (neighbour), P.W. 6 - Jamman Singh (neighbour), P.W. 26 - Ritika Chouhan (daughter of deceased) and P.W. 27 - Meena Devi (daughter of deceased) have not supported the prosecution story and declared hostile. P.W. 2 - Pramod Chouhan, who is author of F.I.R., has not corroborated prosecution story in his statement as he did not name accused-respondents and nor did he utter a single word or allegation against them. Thus, from the evidence available on record, the prosecution has not been able to establish that injuries on the person of the deceased were caused by the accused-respondents, rather, it appears that death of deceased Vinod took place after falling from height in drunken condition.
15. So far as recovery of bloodstained iron pipe at the instance of the accused-respondent Gaurav is concerned, a perusal of recovery memo of iron pipe (Ex.P/13) reveals that same was (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:51:46 PM) (Downloaded on 13/09/2025 at 12:19:15 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:33800-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLAD-25/2025] recovered by the police at the instance of accused-respondent Gaurav from his rented house on 11.02.2022 in the presence of Nihal Singh and Himmat Ram. P.W. 28 - Mohammad Jabir Pathan, the Investigation Officer, has admitted in his cross-examination that house mentioned in Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/14 was not Gaurav's own house; Gaurav had taken the said house on rent and was using it as a warehouse; he did not investigate as to how was owner of the said warehouse and whether it was given on rent to Gaurav or not; he did not collect any receipt or document in this regard. P.W. 9 - Nihal Singh has stated in his cross-examination that he did not now whether the police had already visited place of site plan. He did not know how many rooms were there in Gaurav Nagwal's house and in which direction, the main door of the house was opening. P.W. 30 - Himmat Ram has stated in his cross- examination that house shown in Ex.P/13 was closed, which was closed since long time. Junk and craftsmanship material was lying there. There were rings in front and rear portion of the iron pipe, which was used for tap fitting and was rusted. He has admitted that an iron pipe was lying in open condition at place 'x' in Ex.P/12; door of the house was after it; he did not know whether the door was locked or not; there were residential houses in the neighbourhood; he did not seen that water tap connections were installed outside in all the houses; he did not know whether the pipe which they brought was used by the neighbours to fill water outside. It is pertinent to note that both aforesaid recovery witnesses i.e. P.W. 9 & P.W. 30 are police officials and subordinate to the Seizure Officer. There is no evidence on record that no (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:51:46 PM) (Downloaded on 13/09/2025 at 12:19:15 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:33800-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLAD-25/2025] independent witness was available at the time of recovery and that any independent witness/neighbour refused to become a witness. Neither any rojnamcha regarding posting of these witnesses at the concerned police station has been produced nor any rojnamcha or log-sheet of vehicle has been produced on record to show that said witnesses went to the place of recovery on the relevant date. It will also be noteworthy that site plans (Ex.P/14 and Ex.P/31) both are of the same place i.e. rented house of the accused-respondents. A perusal of Ex.P/31 shows that same is verification memo of place of incident at the instance of accused Kuldeep prepared on 14.12.2021. Thus, it reveals that place of recovery was already within the knowledge of the police, which visited said place on 14.12.2021. However, no such iron pipe was either found or recovered by the police on that day and later, it has been shown to be recovered from the accused- respondent Gaurav on 11.02.2022 i.e. after almost two months of the incident.
16. With regard to bloodstained clothes of the deceased, a perusal of recovery memo of clothes of the deceased (Ex.P/15) reveals that same was prepared on 12.12.2021 at 2.30 p.m. in the presence of witnesses viz. Pramod Chouhan (P.W. 2) and Manoharlal (P.W. 12). But a perusal of the rojnamcha (Ex.P/22) shows that same was prepared on 12.12.2021 at 2.48 p.m. and it was mentioned therein that after registration of F.I.R., investigation was handed over to Mohammad Jabir, S.I. It shows that recovery of clothes was affected before registration of F.I.R. Even, a perusal of Ex.P/15 reveals that F.I.R. number was (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:51:46 PM) (Downloaded on 13/09/2025 at 12:19:15 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:33800-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLAD-25/2025] mentioned therein with red ink and remaining handwriting was in blue ink, which establishes that F.I.R. number on the recovery memo of clothes was mentioned subsequently. P.W. 2 - Pramod Chouhan, who is witness to recovery of clothes, has not uttered a single word regarding recovery of clothes of the deceased vide Ex.P/15.
17. It is pertinent to mention here that no finger prints have been collected by the police from the iron pipe to connect the accused-respondents in this case. Thus, from the above evidence available on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove recovery of aforesaid articles as well as its story against accused- respondents beyond all reasonable doubt.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the judgment impugned passed by the trial court.
19. Accordingly, present criminal appeal is dismissed. The Judgment dated 06.07.2023 passed by the trial court is affirmed.
20. The record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
INDER/53
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:51:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/09/2025 at 12:19:15 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)