Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surendra Singh And Ors vs State on 20 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 141/1988
1. Surendra Singh S/o Hamer Chand Singh
2. Virendra Singh S/o Hamer Chand Singh
Both by caste Rajputs,
3. Babu Lal S/o Mathura Lal, by caste Nai
4. Daiam Chand S/o Hari Ram, by caste kalal,
All residents of Nagdi, district Chittorgarh
(At present lodged in Central Jail at Udaipur)
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Adv. Assisted
by Mr. Jagdish Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
Reserved on 11/08/2025
Pronounced on 20/08/2025
Per Mr. Bipin Gupta, J:
1. The present criminal has been filed challenging the judgment
and sentence dated 11.02.1988 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.9/88 whereby
the appellants have been convicted for the offences under
Sections 302/34, 325/34, 323/34 and 447 IPC.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (2 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the four
accused-appellants and passed the following sentences:-
S.No. Offence Sentence
1 302, 34 IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of
Rs.50/- each, in default of payment,
further to undergo 06 Months S.I.
2 325/34 04 years R.I and fine of Rs.250/-
each, in default of payment, further
to undergo 06 Months S.I.
3 323 IPC 06 Months R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-
each, in default of payment, further
to undergo 03 months R.I.
4 447 IPC 03 Months R.I. and fine of Rs.100/-,
in default of payment, further to
undergo 01 month R.I.
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
3. Due to death of appellant-Babulal, the appeal has been
abated qua him vide order dated 19.02.2020 and thus, the
present appeal survives only against three remaining appellants.
4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that an FIR
was lodged by one Madan Lal (PW-1) stating therein that on
13.02.1986, after having lunch, he along with Mohan, Rama,
Kailash, Bhanwarlal, Ramkunwar and Tamubai were cultivating
their agricultural land and at about 01.30 pm, Virendra Singh and
Surendra Singh came on motorcycle from the side of village Nagdi
and stopped their bike about 250 feet from the agricultural field of
the complainant and after some time, they returned back. They
again came on their motorcycle along with Dadamchand S/o Hari
Ram, Babu Lal S/o Mathurlal and 10-15 other persons with
'Lathies and Dhariya' and started beating Ramlal, Bhanwarlal,
Kailash, Ramkanwari and Tamubai. Due to the said incident,
victims sustained injuries on their body and one Ramlal died due
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (3 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
to said injuries. The occurrence of incident was seen by some
neighbours namely Kamla W/o Nandu, Sajan W/o Nandu, Narangi
Bai W/o Kishore and Udiya Gujar. The said incident happened on
account of enmity between the families. On this, a report was
lodged at Police Station for the offence under Sections 147, 148,
149, 302,307, 447 and 323 IPC.
5. The Investigating Agency, after investigation submitted the
challan and charges were framed against the accused-appellants
for the offences under sections 147, 149, 302, 325 and 323 IPC.
Statements of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC were
recorded. The accused did not admit the guilt and requested for
trial. Thereafter, the trial proceeded and the prosecution produced
19 witnesses and exhibited documents before the trial Court. The
defence documents were also exhibited in the process of cross-
examination of the prosecution witness only and no defence was
produced separately.
6. The Court below framed the following points for
consideration:
"1- D;k jkeyky dh e`R;q gqbZ \ D;k dSyk"k] jked¡oj
ds xaHkhj o lk/kkj.k pksVsa igq¡pkbZ rFkk Vew] eksgu o
Hk¡oj ds lk/kkj.k pksVsa igq¡pkbZ \
2- D;k vfHk;qDrx.k tks la[;k esa 5 ;k mlls vf/kd
FksA mUgksaus ?kkrd gfFk;kj ls lqlfTtr gksdj voS/k
tu lewg dk fuekZ.k fd;kA vfHk;qDrksa dk leku
mns"; jkeyky dks tku ls ekjus dk Fkk rFkk vU; dks
x¡Hkhj o lk/kkj.k pksVsa igq¡pkus dk leku mns"; Fkk tks
mUgksaus gR;k dkfjr dh o pksVsa LosPNk ls igq¡pkbZ \
3- D;k ekStwnk pkjksa vfHk;qDrx.k jkeyky dks tku ls
ekjus ds fy;s ,d jk; Fks o blh izdkj vU; dks x¡Hkhj
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (4 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
o lk/kkj.k pksVsa igq¡pkus ds fy;s ,d jk; Fks tks mUgksaus
jkeyky dh gR;k dkfjr dh vkSj vU; dks x¡Hkhj o
lk/kkj.k pksVsa LosPNk ls igq¡pkbZ \
4- D;k /kkjk 302@149 Hkk-n-la- ds vkjksi yxs gq, gksus
dh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 302@34 Hkk-n-la- esa nks'k fl)h ?
kksf'kr dh tk ldrh gS vkSj blh izdkj /kkjk
325&323@149 Hkk-n-l-a dk vkjksi yxk;s tkus dh
fLFkfr esa /kkjk 325&323@34 Hkk-n-la- esa nks'kh Bgjk;k
tk ldrk gS \
5- D;k vfHk;qDrksa us vijk/k djus dh fu;r ls
Qfj;knh ds dCts o dk"r dh vkjkth esa izos"k fd;k
tks vfrfjDr mls viekfur] rkfM+r o ukjkt djus
xjt ls Hkh fd;k \ "
7. The trial Court on the basis of the points for determination,
convicted all the four accused for the offences and passed the
sentence of punishment as mentioned in the table in para 2.
8. Being aggrieved, the accused-appellants have preferred the
present appeal.
9. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the FIR (Exhibit-1)
is totally contrary to the evidence of the eye-witnesses PW-1 to
PW-6. Counsel further submitted that the FIR does not mention
the fact of the accused-appellants holding a Dharia, nor does it
specifically attribute any injuries sustained by the victims to any of
the accused-appellants. Counsel contends that the prosecution's
theory of the victims being assaulted with a Dharia is not
supported by any medical evidence, as none of the injury reports,
including the post-mortem report, record any injury caused by a
sharp weapon. Therefore, the prosecution's version is inconsistent
with the medical evidence. It is further argued that no Dharia, as
stated by the witnesses, has been recovered. Only lathis were
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (5 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
recovered, and that too from a public place. Moreover, the
witnesses to the recovery have turned hostile, and as such, the
recovery has not been proved so as to hold the accused-appellants
committing the offence beyond doubt.
10. It is further argued that the prosecution has improved their
version just to hold the accused responsible and to get them
punished for severe offences. It is also submitted that no motive
has been assigned either in the FIR or in the prosecution
evidence, and even the trial court has concluded that the
prosecution failed to establish any motive. Furthermore, the FSL
report does not support the prosecution's version, as the samples
sent by the prosecution were not found to be intact at the time of
testing and thus, the samples were not in a condition to determine
the blood group. It is further submitted that the prosecution did
not send the recovered lathis for FSL examination to establish that
the prosecution has recovered the same lathis allegedly used by
the accused-appellants. It was also submitted that the
Investigating Officer (PW-18) admitted in his cross-examination
that no bloodstains were found on the lathis. The recovery
witnesses (PW-12 and PW-13) have turned hostile. Therefore, the
prosecution has completely failed to discharge its burden of
proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned
judgment is based merely on presumption, surmises and
conjectures, and as such, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
11. Counsel for the respondent-State, while supporting the
judgment of conviction dated 11.02.1988, submitted that the
prosecution has proved its case against the accused-appellants
beyond reasonable doubt. The entire case is based on the
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (6 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
statements of the eyewitnesses, who are also injured witnesses.
Therefore, there is a natural likelihood of their presence at the
scene of the incident. As such, both injured witnesses and
eyewitnesses have consistently supported the prosecution's case
beyond doubt, and hence, the appeal deserves to be rejected.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
13. A bare perusal of the impugned order reflects that the
learned Trial Court, while passing the order of conviction,
specifically came to the conclusion that there was a lack of motive.
The learned Trial Court also concluded that there was no medical
evidence to corroborate the injuries on deceased by dhariya. The
Trial Court also recorded that there was an improvement in the
version of the witnesses, but considered such improvement to be
natural. The learned Trial Court, after considering the statements
of PW-1 to PW-8, recorded a finding of guilt and passed the order
of conviction against the accused-appellants. This Court deems it
proper to analyse the evidence led by the prosecution to
determine whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the
charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt or not.
14. The case set up by the prosecution is based on FIR lodged by
one Madan Lal, who happens to be the real brother of the
deceased Ramlal and a relative of the other injured persons. As
per the FIR, Virendra Singh, Surendra Singh, Dadamchand and
Babulal along with 10-15 other persons armed with lathis and
dharias, came to his agricultural field and started beating them.
The complainant did not lodge the FIR immediately, as he was in
fear of the accused and was also to attend the injured persons.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (7 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
15. In examination-in-chief before the trial Court, PW-1 Madan
Lal did not reiterate the statement made in the FIR that the
appellants along with 10-15 other persons had also assaulted
him. The only allegation made by him in his testimony is that the
accused Surendra Singh and Virendra Singh inflicted injuries on
Ramlal using dharia. He further stated in his statement that there
was no enmity with the accused, and he had come to his house
with the body of Ramlal and other injured after the incident had
taken place. On the way to Arnod, he met the police personnel
who took him down and brought him to the village Nagdi. He
stated that the report was not read over to him, on the other hand
in cross-examination he stated ignorance that why the fact of the
dharia being in the hands of Surendra Singh and Virendra Singh is
not recorded in FIR. He also could not explain why this was not
recorded in Exhibit D/1 which is his statement recorded under
Section 161. Further, he was unable to explain why he had not
attributed the use of the dharia by Surendra Singh and Virendra
Singh in causing the death of Ramlal in FIR.
16. PW-2 Kailash, who is the son of Ramlal, stated in his
examination-in-chief that the accused Virendra Singh, Surendra
Singh, Dadam Chand, and Babu Lal came along with other
persons whom he did not recognize. Accused Virendra Singh and
Surendra Singh were holding dharias in their hands and caused
injuries to his father. He further stated that Babu Lal inflicted an
injury on his hand with a Lathi, due to which his hand was
fractured. He also stated that after the incident, Madan Lal took
the body of his father along with the other injured persons.
Additionally, he stated that he did not know the reason why his
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (8 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
father was beaten by the accused. In his cross-examination, he
did not explain the omission of the fact that Virendra Singh and
Surendra Singh had used dharias in the incident, nor why this fact
was not recorded in Exhibit D/2 which is statement recorded u/s
161 CrPC. Further, he admitted that he had informed the police
about the use of a lathi by Babu Lal, which caused the fracture,
but he could not explain why the police did not record this fact. In
his cross-examination, he stated that Madan Lal is his uncle and
that they had gone along with Tamu and Mohan in a jeep when
the police came to their house.
17. PW-3 Narangi, the widow of Kishore, turned hostile.
18. PW-4 Bhanwarlal, who is the son of the deceased Ramlal,
stated in his examination-in-chief that Surendra Singh and
Virendra Singh were holding dharias, while Babu Lal and Dadam
Chand were armed with lathis, along with 10-12 other persons.
He further stated that Surendra Singh and Virendra Singh inflicted
injuries on his father. However, he did not know the reason why
his father was attacked. He also stated that his father died when
they were coming back to their house. He also could not explain
in his cross-examination why the fact that Surendra Singh and
Virendra Singh were holding dharias was not mentioned by the
police in Exhibit D/3 which is statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC.
Further, he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know
the 10-15 persons who were involved in the incident.
19. PW-5 Smt. Tamu stated that the accused are Thakurs, and
they came along with their father on a motorcycle and thereafter
left after some time. In the afternoon, Surendra Singh, Virendra
Singh, Dadam Chand, and Babu came to their field armed with
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (9 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
dharias and lathis and attacked their father-in-law. She further
stated that she did not know who had hit her. She stated that,
along with the four accused, there were 10-15 other persons
whom she did not recognize. She further stated that Ramlal died
on the way while he was being taken to the house. In her cross-
examination, she also could not explain why the fact that Virendra
Singh was holding a dharia was not recorded in Exhibit D/4
statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC.
20. PW-6 Mohan Lal, the brother of the deceased Ramlal, stated
in his examination-in-chief that Surendra Singh and Virendra
Singh were holding dharias, while Dadam Chand and Babu Lal
were holding lathis, and they started beating Ramlal with the
sharp side of the dharia. He also sustained injuries to his hand in
the incident. He further stated that he did not know why Ramlal
was killed. In his cross-examination, he could not explain why the
police did not record the facts of holding dharias by Virendra Singh
in Exhibit D/5 statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC. He stated that in
Exhibit D/5, it is not recorded that Surendra Singh and Virendra
Singh were holding Dharias in their hands. He was unaware of the
fact whether the police had come to his house or not and who
took him to the hospital. He admitted that the fact of Ramlal's
killing by the four accused is not recorded in Exhibit D/5
statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC.
21. PW-7 Smt. Ramkunwar, the daughter-in-law of Ramlal,
stated the same story as the other witnesses, alleging that
Surendra Singh and Virendra Singh were holding dharias and
lathis. She further stated that 20-25 other persons had come
along with the accused to kill them, whom she did not recognize.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (10 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
In her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not recognize
the 20-25 other persons who attacked Ramlal and herself. She
also admitted that the fact of Virendra Singh holding a dharia is
not mentioned in Exhibit D/6 in statement u/s 161 CrPC.
22. PW-8 Mathura Lal has turned hostile.
23. PW-9 Bheru Lal also has turned hostile.
24. PW-11 and PW-19 are the doctors who examined the
deceased and the injured, and they stated that all injuries were
caused by blunt weapons, not by sharp weapons. Two other
witnesses are the Investigating Officers, PW-15 and PW-18. The
Investigating Officer admitted in his cross-examination that the
lathis recovered at the instance of the accused under Section 27
did not contain any bloodstains. It was also admitted that Exhibit
D/1 to Exhibit D/5 are the statements as stated by the witness.
The FSL report indicates that the prosecution did not send the
samples properly, making it impossible to determine the blood
group from the samples submitted.
25. The learned Trial Court, without considering the contradictory
statements of the eyewitnesses, convicted the accused solely
based on the examination-in-chief of the witnesses. This was done
despite no motive being established on record, despite the
prosecution's own assertion that 10-15 other persons besides the
four accused were involved in the incident, and without attributing
any individual injury to any particular person, relying on Section
34 of the IPC, the Trial Court convicted the accused by deciding
Issue No.4.
26. A reading of the statements and cross-examinations of the
so-called eyewitnesses reveals material contradictions in their
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (11 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
testimonies. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt through these eyewitnesses that only the four
accused were responsible for the incident. The Trial Court found
that the charges under Sections 148 and 302/149, 323-325/148
IPC were not proved, thereby simply rejecting the presence of the
10-15 other persons. This contradicts the prosecution's entire
story, which alleges that the four accused along with 10-15 other
persons were involved in the incident.
27. In the FIR, there is no attribution of any injury to any
particular person nor such attribution is there in Exhibit D/1 to
D/6. The attribution of injuries by individual had come by way of
the examination during the course of trial before the court below.
The Trial Court presumed that the witnesses had turned hostile
because they were win over by the defense. This presumption is
without any basis. It is further necessary to mention that despite
finding no motive and that not more than four people were
involved in the incident, the Trial Court, relying merely on the
contradictory statements of the so-called eyewitnesses, has
convicted the accused. The learned Trial Court did not consider the
fact that the prosecution failed to recover any dharia. The
prosecution also failed to prove who inflicted injuries on whom, as
the allegations were general in nature. Moreover, the Trial Court
overlooked that the witnesses were relatives belonging to the
same family, and that another independent witness, PW-3, had
turned hostile. The prosecution failed to corroborate the incident
through the FSL, as the samples were not sent in a proper manner
to enable any conclusive report. Consequently, the prosecution
failed to prove the guilt of the accused due to their own lapses.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (12 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
Even the lathis recovered did not have any bloodstains, as
admitted by the Investigating Officer, and moreover, these lathis
were not sent for any FSL examination. Thus, the prosecution
failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court
also specifically found a clear absence of motive, and no motive
has been established. The Trial Court held that the alleged enmity
was not a motive but mere suspicion of the prosecution.
Convicting the accused merely on the ground that the witnesses
were injured and their presence was natural cannot be held to be
correct in the facts of the present case, especially when the so-
called witnesses/eye-witnesses have given contradictory
statements and have stated unanimously that not only the four
accused but also 10-15 other persons were present. On the other
hand, the Trial Court found that the charges under Sections 149
IPC having been not proved. Such contradictory statements raise
doubts, and since the prosecution has failed to remove these
doubts, the guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment passed in the
case of Baljinder Kumar @ Kala Vs. State of Punjab; 2025
INSC 856 has held that the contradiction in the complainant's
statements regarding the accused carrying a particular weapon
and subsequently changing the weapon is fatal to the
prosecution's case. The Apex Court has further held that different
versions are set up by the prosecution at different point of time
leads to a gaping hole in the prosecution story altogether. The
relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced herein below:
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (13 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
"......
30. The general principle is that only such omissions
which amount to contradiction in material particulars
can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness.
Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness
is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in
evidence will not make the prosecution's case
doubtful. Material discrepancies are those which are
not normal and not expected of a normal person.
Moreover, when witness testimonies exhibit
significant contradictions between their initial
statements and trial depositions, they cannot be
relied upon unless independently corroborated.
......
36.Further, to make matters even worse for the prosecution, there are key deficiencies in the investigation and the evidentiary value of the alleged recoveries remains questionable. Neither the arrest of the Accused nor the alleged recovery of the bloodstained clothes and the weapon (purportedly based on the disclosure statement of the Accused) is supported by any independent witness. While the recovery may not be wholly discarded due to the lack of a supporting witness, however, it undoubtedly becomes highly questionable, especially with the factum of long delay of two months in the discovery being effected.
37. Additionally, it is quite conspicuous that the investigating agency took minimum pains to link the discovered articles to the incident or the deceased persons through forensic evidence or otherwise. The only forensic evidence in this case is the report of the chemical analysis which merely states that the blood found on the exhibits is opined to be of human origin. The same is evidently not sufficient to link the articles to the deceased or the specific offence. In any case, (Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (14 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988] the report has admittedly not been formally exhibited before the Court. With regard to the alleged weapon of offence, it has been deposed by PW22-Karnail Singh (SHO/IO) that the weapon was misplaced at a later stage and no forensic analysis placed before the Court. It clearly and amply reflects the regard that has been held due towards investigative protocols in the instant case and is utterly deplorable. ......
41. As such, we are constrained to conclude that the above discussed deficiencies which include, (a) contradictions and embellishments in key eyewitness testimonies, (b) failure to conclusively link material objects to the crime, and (c) investigative lapses leading to gaps in the evidentiary chain - all these factors highlight the failure of the prosecution in meeting the legal threshold for a conviction."
29. In the present case, the trial Court brushed aside the contradictions in the statements of the so-called eyewitnesses PW- 1 to PW-8. In the present matter, the prosecution has also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and there are deficiencies in the investigation and recoveries, as the recovered lathis were not sent for FSL examination, nor was there any recovery of a dharia as alleged by the prosecution. The Investigating Agency failed to link the recovered articles to the incident through forensic evidence. The prosecution has also failed in its duty to send the samples of the clothes of the deceased in a correct manner so that the FSL could have given the opinion whether the articles sent by the prosecution belonged to the deceased or not.
30. Further, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive, and even the Trial Court has concluded that no (Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (15 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988] motive was established. In such a situation, the accused could not have been held guilty.
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Mohd. Yunus and Ors.; (2024) 3 SCC 180 and other connected matter held that conviction could only be made in case eye-witness testimonies are credible. If there are contradiction and improvement in the statements, it can lead to acquittal. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
"......
17. It is to be noticed that as per the first version of the incident narrated by the informant-Deenu in the FIR lodged by him, Ghasita (A3) gave a Pharsa blow on the head of the deceased and second blow was given by Akhtar Hussain (A4) by Pharsa over his head and third blow was given by Mohd. Jamil (A2) with Kulhari on his head and when the deceased fell down, Mohd. Yunus (A1) gave a lathi blow and Ghasita (A3) gave another blow over the head of the deceased. When Akhtar Hussain (A4) was sent for trial, Deenu was examined as PW-7 who maintained his statement that Mohd. Jamil (A2), Ghasita (A3) and Akhtar Hussain (A4) assaulted the deceased with Pharsa and Kulhari. Comparing the statement of the Deenu (PW-
7) with the statement of Ahmad (PW-8), the Trial Court found major contradictions and disbelieved the statement of Deenu (PW-7) while acquitting Akhtar Hussain(A4) of the charges Under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. It was also held in the said judgment of the Trial Court that PW-7 and PW-8 are interested witnesses and cannot be relied upon in the circumstances of the case. Further it was noticed that PW-7 is changing his stand inasmuch as in his earlier statement dated 08.07.1999 he denied (Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (16 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988] that Ghasita (A3) and Akhtar Hussain (A4) were armed with Pharsa which he stated in the trial against Akhtar Hussain (A4). The Trial Court was of the opinion that both the important witnesses namely, Deenu (PW-7) and Ahmad (PW-8) made improvements in their statements. Therefore, when the statements are contrary, facts are twisted and improvements are made, no reliance can be made upon such statement."
32. Herein, there are not only contradiction but also improvements and the trial court has also found that there are improvements. The so called improvements were not natural in nature as the witnesses improved their versions to make the appellants responsible for the act.
33. In Nagaraj Reddy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ; (2023) 20 SCC 798 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the testimony of an interested witness without corroboration is not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced herein below:
".......
13. Undisputedly, Narayanappa (PW-1) is an interested witness, being the brother of the deceased. He has also admitted that there existed previous enmity between the parties. As held by this Court in a catena of cases including a recent decision in the case of Khema alias Khem Chandra etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0984/2022, previous enmity is a double- edged sword. On the one hand, it provides for the motive and on the other hand, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
14. This Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras MANU/SC/0039/1957 : (1957) SCR 981 has held thus:(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (17 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988]
11........ Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established Rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial."
34. In the present case also, the interested witnesses who not only have improved the versions but have given a contradictory statement and there is no proof of corroboration by the FSL. In such situation, it can be held that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt beyond doubt.
35. In Saheb and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ;2024 INSC 700, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that prosecution must prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt if there are inconsistency in testimony of the witnesses and the same will lead to acquittal. (Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (18 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988] The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced herein below:
"......
6. We are conscious of the fact that Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare was brutally murdered in his own house on 08.04.2006, but the guilt of those responsible for his murder has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. All that the defence needs to establish is the existence of reasonable doubt for the Accused to be given the benefit thereof. In the case on hand, the guilt of the Appellants hinges solely upon the testimony of the widow, Janakibai (PW-1), as the other so-called eye-witnesses have been discarded by the High Court. Notably, Annapurnabai, the daughter-in-law, a key eye-witness by all accounts, was not even examined by the prosecution. ........
13. As already noted, the Appellants have suffered 10 years' incarceration. Given the lacunae in the prosecution's case and the shaky evidence adduced in support thereof by PW-1, we necessarily have to extend the benefit of doubt to the Appellants. The Appellants are, therefore, acquitted of the offences Under Section 148 Indian Penal Code and Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code."
36. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the accused- appellants.
37. As recorded above, this Court finds that there is lack of evidence so as to hold the appellants guilty for the offences beyond reasonable doubt for the reasons that there are (Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (19 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988] contradictory statements and serious improvements in testimony at different stages of the so called eye witnesses, the independent witnesses having turned hostile, the medical evidence does not corroborate the factum of injuries having been caused by Dharia on the deceased as well as there is complete lack of proof in series of the statements of the witnesses about the attribution of particular injury by particular accused. The prosecution's story also states that 10-15 other persons were involved in the incident, and the allegations were general in nature against the accused as well as these 10-15 others. The Trial Court did not find the prosecution's story to be correct regarding the involvement of more than four persons; therefore, the accused were not convicted under Section 149 IPC. Yet, merely by invoking the provisions of Section 34 IPC, all four accused were held guilty. The Trial Court has not arrived at a specific conclusion as to which accused inflicted injury on the deceased Ram Lal. In the absence of proof attributing the infliction of injury to any individual or individuals, a conviction of all the accused merely by invoking Section 34 IPC cannot be allowed to stand, as the prosecution has completely failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt--either by the statements of the witnesses, or corroboration by medical evidence, or through forensic (FSL) reports.
38. Since the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the accused.
39. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated (Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:35752-DB] (20 of 20) [CRLA-141/1988] 11.02.1988 passed in Sessions Case No.9/88 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh to the extent of appellants' conviction and sentence is quashed and set aside. The accused- appellants are acquitted of the charges against them. The appellants are already on Bail, therefore their bail bonds are discharged.
40. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./481 BNSS, the accused appellants are hereby directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of 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 accused-appellants shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as and when called upon to do so.
41. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned trial court be returned forthwith. (BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 57-praveen/-
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:53:01 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)