Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Bheema And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:33814-Db) on 29 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 582/2002
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bheema son of Dola Gurjar aged 50 years resident of Pasund
P.S. Rajnagar District Rajsamand
2. Mal Chand son of Shri Modi Ram Gurjar resident of Koyal -
presently residing at village Sewali P.S. Rajnagar District
Rajsamand
3. Paras Ram son of Nathu Gurjar resident of Pasund P.S. Raj
Nagar District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 259/2002
Smt. Badami Bai widow of Late Sh. Mohanlal(deceased) resident
of Boraj Ka Kheda, P.S. Rajnagar, District Rajsamand.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bheema son of Dola Gurjar, resident of Pasund, P.S. Rajnagar,
District Rajsand.
2. Mal Chand son of Modi Ram Gurjar, resident of Village Koyal,
at present Sevali, P.S. Rajnagar, District Rajsamand.
3. Paras Ram son of Nathu Gurjar, resident of Pasund, P.S.
Rajnagar, District Rajsamand.
4. The State of Rajasthan
----Respondents
For State(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha
Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi for Mr. Vineet Jain,
Sr. Adv.
Mr. Surendra, Amicus Curie
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order Reportable 29/07/2025 Per, Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, J:
1. The present appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. (by the State of Rajasthan) as well as the Criminal Revision Petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. (by Smt. Badami widow of deceased-Mohan) have been preferred while assailing the validity and propriety of (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (2 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002] judgment dated 14.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.94/2001 whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of IPC.
Facts of the case:
2. The facts germane to the present case are that on 06.11.2000 at around 11:00 PM, a written complaint was submitted by respondent Mal Chand S/o Shri Modi Ram Gurjar stating therein that around 6:00 PM his brother-in-law deceased-
Mohan S/o Lalu Gurjar came and requested to come along with him to meet Nathu Ji at Karatwas to have some social discussion and receive some payment. Thereafter, the complainant and deceased went to Karatwas on deceased's Motorcycle and after having necessary talks, at around 8:15 PM started back for home. At around 9:00 PM, while returning back through the forest area, they found that the road was blocked and thus, deceased Mohan stopped his motorcycle. Suddenly 2-3 persons who have covered their faces ran towards them and the complainant being frightened, jumped from motor cycle and ran away. The said persons attacked deceased Mohan with sticks. It is further stated that the complainant ran to village and brought few villagers on tractor. After reaching on the site they found that deceased Mohan has died on spot.
3. On the basis of said complaint, FIR No.233/2000 dated 06.11.2000 was registered at Police Station Kunwariya, District Rajsamand against unknown persons for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The investigating agency carried out the (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (3 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002] investigation and filed charge sheet against three accused persons i.e. Bhima S/o Dola, Paras Ram S/o Nathu as well as complainant Malchand S/o Modi Ram.
4. Post framing of charges, the learned trial Court proceeded with the trial wherein the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and exhibited 65 documents. The statement of accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the commission of offence by them and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. Three defence witnesses were also examined during trial.
5. The learned trial Court post considering the entire record vide its judgment dated 14.12.2001 concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt while specifically observing that the entire prosecution story is based on doubts and there had been various missing links in the story of prosecution. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 14.12.2001 acquitted the respondents.
Arguments on behalf of the appellant-State; Petitioner-widow of the deceased :
6. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned Court below has not appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record in its true spirit and has proceeded to disbelieve the prosecution story in a pre-determined manner. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that although it is a case of circumstantial evidence but the prosecution has been able to establish the complete chain and there was no missing link whatsoever. It has also been contended that the prosecution witnesses have clearly established the motive and intention on the (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (4 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002] part of the accused persons. As well as, while referring to the recovery of the weapons been made by the investigating agency upon the information of accused persons, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the said recoveries clearly establish the link between the motive and execution of the commission of crime by the accused persons.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner, while extending the said arguments asserted that witnesses PW2 Dalu, PW4 Badami Bai, PW 16 Pratapi Bai and other witnesses have specifically deposed the background facts regarding prevailing dispute and animosity which clearly establishes the motive on the part of the accused persons and committing murder of deceased Mohan. He, thus argued that the testimony of all the witnesses remained uncontroverted and there was no inconsistency whatsoever in their testimony. It was thus submitted that learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in acquitting the accused- respondents.
Arguments on behalf of the accused-respondents:
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, has argued that the judgment impugned is perfectly valid and a reasoned one and the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and the material available on record. It was further stated that the learned trial Court has also recorded a specific finding that the present case was an outcome of faulty and laconic investigation by the investigating agency and the prosecution has failed to connect the dots to establish the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (5 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002] Learned counsel for the accused-respondents argued that the learned court below has rightly taken into consideration that;
(i) the prosecution witnesses during their examination-in- chief have only tried to explain probable motive behind commission of offence by the accused, however, they have specifically stated that on the basis of said probabilities they have doubts that the offence has been committed by the accused persons;
(ii) the learned trial court has further rightly found that the unexplained delay of six months in effecting the recovery of weapons from the accused-persons is clearly fatal to the prosecution story;
(iii) the learned Court below has recorded positive finding that even as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is clear that there was clear conflict of interest amongst the accused persons with regard to the land of deceased and therefore, it cannot be presumed that the accused person have proceeded with the common intention and conspired to commit the alleged offence against deceased Mohan;
(iv) the learned court below has further rightly observed that the FSL report (Ex. 55) also clearly shows that no blood stains were found on the weapons so recovered during the investigation and there were no links to connect the accused respondents with the alleged crime;
(v) lastly it has been submitted that when there appears clear doubts in the story of prosecution, it would not be justifiable to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as the learned trial Court has not misconstrued or misread the (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (6 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002] evidence available on record, rather has rightly appreciated the entire evidence in holistic manner. It was thus prayed that the impugned judgment be upheld and the appeal as well as revision petition deserve to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the record.
Analysis and reasoning-
(I) Circumstantial Evidence -
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the entire case of the prosecution stands on circumstantial evidence. It is settled proposition of law that where the case of prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete and that every hypothesis must be excluded but the one proposed ought to be proved and such circumstances must show the act has been done by the accused within all human probability.
11. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has very well been crystalised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein it was held as under :
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] . This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656] . It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (7 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002] [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] :
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the 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.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 :1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(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.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (8 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002]
12. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court held that it is a primary principle that the accused 'must be' and not merely 'may be' proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved'. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except the one where the accused is guilty. It has been held that 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 probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused.
13. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted solely on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
14. In Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 5273, in the context of circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"46. Although there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows:(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (9 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002]
1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established;
2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature;
3. The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved."
47. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that the case on hand is one of the circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness of the occurrence. It is settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilty of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye witness in the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of the expected principles in that regard."
15. In Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer versus The State of Kerala reported in 2024(10) SCC 813, in the context of circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"11. Thereafter, the above principles have been reiterated in the subsequent judgments of this Court and hold the field till date.
Thus, these basic established principles can be summarized in the following terms that the chain of events needs to be so established that the court has no option but to come to one and only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused person. If an iota of doubt creeps in at any stage in the sequence of events, the benefit thereof should flow to the accused. Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of the fact that it is very strong, cannot be a substitute for a proof. The chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead to only one conclusion that is the guilt of the accused. Even in the case of a conviction where in an appeal the chain of evidence is found to be not complete or the courts could reach to any another hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused, the accused person must be given the benefit of doubt which obviously would lead to his acquittal. Meaning thereby, when there is a (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (10 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002] missing link, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded. In other words, the onus on the prosecution is to produce such evidence which conclusively establishes the truth and the only truth with regard to guilt of an accused for the charges framed against him or her, and such evidence should establish a chain of events so complete as to not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused."
16. The above mentioned proposition of law has recently being reiterated by he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jabir & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 32 also.
17. In the light of these guiding principles, we will have to examine the present case.
18. The circumstances which have been relied on by the prosecution are - (i) the motive on the basis of prevailing land dispute and (ii) the recovery of weapons upon the information of accused-respondents.
19. The evidence of prosecution witnesses more specifically PW2 -Dalu, PW4-Badami, PW16-Pratapi and PW17-Lalu who are close relatives of deceased Mohan shows that said witnesses though tried to explain the ongoing land dispute as motive behind the murder of deceased Mohan, however, in their examination-in- chief itself have specifically averred that due to the said dispute they have doubts that the offence has been committed by the accused-respondents. In view of the settled position of law discussed supra, the prosecution had to establish its story beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in the case in hand the entire case set up by the prosecution was solely based upon the probabilities/ doubts being expressed by the family members of the deceased.
20. The prosecution has further tried to connect the accused- persons with the crime on the basis of recovery of weapons being made allegedly upon the information of the accused-persons. (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (11 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002] However, the record clearly shows that the alleged offence was committed on 6.11.2000, whereas the informations from the accused regarding location of weapons were collected on 20.04.2001 i.e. after a lapse of around 6 months and thereafter the weapons such as kulhadi, knife and kasiya were recovered on 21.04.2001 and 22.04.2001 through Ex. 43, 53 and 55 respectively.
The investigating officer Nahar Singh PW10 has failed to give any justifiable explanation regarding the delay of six months being caused in recovery of the weapons. The said witness has further failed to explain as to when the clothes, ornaments of deceased as well as the soil samples were being collected in the month of November 2000, why the same were sent for FSL after a lapse of around six months on 16.05.2001. The said unexplained delay clearly create serious doubts regarding the reliability of the recoveries made during the investigation.
21. A bare perusal of the FSL report Ex.65 clearly show that no blood was detected upon the weapons i.e. Kulhadi & knife and with regard to Kasiya, the report suggested that it was not found sufficient for the test. In this view of the matter, it is clear that even the recovery so made during the investigation has failed to create connecting link between the offence and the accused- persons.
22. Although the prosecution witnesses while explaining the fact of prevailing land dispute, has tried to suggest common intention/ motive between the accused persons for committing the offence against deceased Mohan. However, by merely perusal of said story, it can be gathered that the accused persons themselves (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (12 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002] have conflict of interest against each other with regard to their desire/claim over the land of deceased Mohan. None of the witnesses have deposed any previous meeting of mind of the accused-persons for committing the crime against deceased Mohan and therefore, neither there were suitable circumstances nor there was direct evidence of any conspiracy being hatched by the accused-respondents for the said offence.
23. In view of the discussions made, the chain of circumstances has not been sufficiently proved by the prosecution in the present case. Thus, the trial Court was justified in granting the benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused.
(II) Consideration in Appeals Against Acquittal:
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581, while considering the principles to be kept in mind during the hearing of an appeal against acquittal, summarized the legal position as under:
8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised as follows: -
8.1 The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2 The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3 The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4 If the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (13 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002] 8.5 The Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible. "
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Phoolchand Rathore reported in 2023 CriLR 724, while observing that courts are generally reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal, recognized that such interference is warranted when it becomes evident that the acquittal was based on an entirely flawed reasoning process, legally erroneous, and involved a perverse approach to the facts of the case. In such circumstances, where the order of acquittal has led to a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court may reverse the acquittal and convert it into a conviction. In support of this principle, the Court relied upon its prior judgments, emphasizing the exceptional nature of such interference to rectify substantial errors in the acquittal order. these are:-
"21. In State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169, reiterating the same view it was observed:
"8. ... This being an appeal against acquittal, this Court would be slow in interfering with the findings of the High Court, unless there is perverse appreciation of the evidence which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and if the High Court has taken a plausible view this Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal passed in favour of the accused and if two views are possible and the High Court had chosen one view which is just and reasonable, then also this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the judgment of the High Court."
22. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020)11 SCC 174, it was observed:
"190. ... Reversal of a judgment and order of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have upon analysis of the evidence on record found the accused to be "not guilty". ..."(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (14 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002]
26. Taking guidance from the above-mentioned judgment, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish that the judgment of acquittal suffers from any perversity or is based on a misreading of the material available on record. Furthermore, this is not a case where no other reasonable view is possible. In fact, in the present case, the view pointing towards the guilt of the accused is weak and improbable, whereas the alternative view favouring the accused is much stronger and more plausible.
27. Thus, upon considering the entire record, we find that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court dated 14.12.2001. Accordingly, the order of acquittal is upheld, and the appeal as well as revision stand dismissed.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
68-69-Neha/-
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)