Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Kana Ram (2025:Rj-Jd:32303-Db) on 23 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 170/1997
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Kana Ram S/o Sh. Kalu Ram, by caste Rebari, R/o Maiya ka
Bera, P.S. Samdari, District Barmer
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhagat Dadhich
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Judgment
23/07/2025
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)
The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 09.10.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in Sessions Case No. 01/1996 whereby, the trial court acquitted the respondent from offence under Section 376, 302, 404, 201 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bagaram lodged a written report on 03.10.1995 at the Police Station Samdari, stating therein that on 02.10.1995, his daughter Havli aged about 13 years went for grazing animals alongwith her uncle Prabhu Ram. At the field, Havli went for fetching water but did not return. When she did not return even in the evening, the complainant and his brother Prabhu ram went in search for her but she could not be traced. In the morning, her dead body was found in the bushes and water can was lying there in the broken state.
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997] On this report, an FIR was lodged and investigation commenced. During investigation, it was found the deceased was raped and murdered. The police filed chargesheet against the respondent accused for offence under Sections 376, 404, 302 IPC. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondent for offence under Sections 376, 302, 404 & 201 IPC.
The prosecution in support of its case examined seventeen witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded who pleaded not guilty.
After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the respondent from offence mentioned above vide judgment dated 09.10.1996, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence acquitted the respondent on the ground of minor contradictions. It is argued that valuables of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused and the bloodstained Dhoti of the accused was also recovered, which connected the accused respondent with the crime. He, therefore, contends that as the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete, the guilt of the accused stands established beyond doubt and thus, the present appeal may be allowed and the accused respondent may be convicted and sentenced appropriately, looking at the heinous nature of the offence.
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997] Per contra, counsel for the accused/respondent contends that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete so as to warrant the conviction of the accused. It is argued that the allegations are unsubstantiated by any corroborative evidence. The recovery of blood smeared dhoti stated to have been effected at the instance of the accused and hair of accused were allegedly sent to the FSL but no FSL report has been produced by the prosecution. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnudatta reported in AIR 2012 SC 1, Mrinal Das & Ors Vs. State of Tripura reported in AIR 2011 SC 3753, DB. Criminal Appeal No. 170/1997 'State of Raj. Vs. Kana Ram. It is submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case and therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under Section 376, 302, 404, 201 IPC.
I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and in the context of circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Biridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, : 1984:INSC:121 : 1984 AIR Supreme Court 1622 held as under:-
"152. 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:-(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997] (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 Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, : 1973:INSC:151 : (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made :-
"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.
153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. "
(emphasis supplied) (Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997] In Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2022:INSC:1075 : 2022 AIR 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:
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 (Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997] 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."
In 'Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer versus The State of Kerala reported in 2024: INSC:838 : 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 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 (Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997] consistent with the innocence of accused."
In the present case, the evidence against the accused respondent is that of last seen with the deceased, recovery of ornaments at the instance of accused, recovery of blood/semen smeared dhoti, hair samples and foot molds at the scene. So far as the evidence of last seen is concerned, there are no witnesses to substantiate the prosecution case that the deceased was last seen with the deceased. So far as the recovery of blood smeared dhoti, hair samples are concerned, the prosecution has failed to produce the FSL report in this regard. Similarly, the foot molds sample were not sent in sealed cover and therefore, could not be taken to be reliable piece of evidence. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the court below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, :2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons",for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has (Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997] ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc.,the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602,' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:--
"A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal."
In the case of State of State of Uttrakhand Vs. Sanjay Ram Tamta, reported (2025) 2 SCC 159,' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:--
"6. Trite is the principle that the appellate courts would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially since the presumption of innocence that is always available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the acquittal and unless there are very substantive and compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt; appellate courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal.
7. Recently, in Surender Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to (Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997] various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid down the principle in the following manner in SCC para 24:
24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal/ revision against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal/revision against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal/revision against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the State has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. The order passed by the learned trial court is detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court.
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32303-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLA-170/1997] In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
63-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:25:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)