Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Nanu And Ors on 8 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 116/1992
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Nanu s/o Uda Gujar
2. Bheru s/o Balu Gujar
3. Kajor s/o Uda Gujar
4. Ladu s/o Nanda Gujar
5. Gheesa s/o Nanda Gujar
6. Uda s/o Bhagtavar, Gujar
7. Sita Ram s/o Uda, Gujar
8. Ugma s/o Chhitar, Gujar
9. Rameshwar s/o Balu Ram
All residents of Village Bharlia, P.S. Bigod, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aditi Sharma, Amicus Curiae
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment Reserved on 19/08/2025 Pronounced on 08/10/2025 Per Hon'ble Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
State assailing the judgment dated 10.01.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No.180/87, whereby the accused-respondents herein were acquitted of the charges against them.
1.1. At the outset, the learned Public Prosecutor has produced a report dated 06.08.2025, submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara, regarding the present (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (2 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] status of the accused persons named in the FIR. As per the said report, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the accused-respondents, namely Uda s/o Bagtadar Gurjar, have passed away. The aforesaid report is taken on record. Accordingly, the present adjudication is being confined to the surviving accused-respondents, namely, Nanu, Bheru, Kajod, Ladu, Gheesa, Sitaram, Ugma, and Rameshwar.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1987 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1992.
3. Brief facts of the case, as presented before this Court by Mr.Ramesh Dewasi learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that on 16.09.1987 at around 8:30 p.m., one Shravan gave a verbal information at Police Station Bigod, to the effect that Smt. Shanti w/o Ganga, was assaulted by accused Bheru, Gheesa, Nanu, and Ugma, who pelted stones at her, abused, and beat her while she was returning from her field in the evening of the same day. On reporting the incident at home, Goru along with Shravan approached the accused persons to question them, whereupon Nanu, Bheru, and Ugma, were present. Soon thereafter, accused persons, namely Rameshwar, Bheru, Sitaram, Nanu, Ugma, Nanda, Kajod, Gheesa, Ladu, and Uda, armed with lathis and kulhadis, with an intention to kill attacked them. Accused Gheesa inflicted a lathi blow on the complainant- Shravan's head, following which he fell down, thereafter, all the accused persons attacked Goru and dragged him inside Nanda ki Gubadi.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (3 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] 3.1. It was further stated that at the spot, witnesses Jeetu and Pokhar attempted to intervene. Complainant-Shravan escaped and ran towards the police station to inform about the said incident. On intimation, Head Constable Mohanlal and L.C. Harishankar reached the scene with others namely, Deva, Bheru, Bheru s/o Bhoja, Jeetu, and Omkar and found Goru lying injured, bleeding from the head, and demanding water, while accused Nanda and his sons Ladu and Gheesa were present. Mohanlal, Head Constable, recorded the statement of the injured Goru (Ex.P.4) after seeing Goru's condition. Thereafter, Goru was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries en route. 3.2. Investigation was thereafter set in motion, pursuant to which the accused-respondents were apprehended, and recoveries were effected at their instance.
3.3. Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan, the charges were read over and explained to the accused- respondents and charges were framed against accused Bheru under Sections 148, 323, 302/149 and 323/149 IPC, and against the remaining accused persons under Sections 147, 323, 302/149 and 323/149 IPC. The accused-respondents denied the same and claimed trial, whereupon the trial commenced. 3.4. During the trial, the prosecution produced 20 witnesses and 46 documentary exhibits for examination, while in defence, 1 witness was produced and 5 documents were exhibited. The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused-respondents Gheesa and Ladu stated that deceased Goru had attacked their father, causing injuries to him.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (4 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] They asserted their innocence and alleged false implication in the present case.
3.5. Upon hearing the contentions of both the parties and considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondents giving them the benefit of doubt, vide the impugned judgment dated 10.01.1991, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State contended that notwithstanding the availability of ample and cogent evidence, including the dying declaration directly implicating the accused-respondents, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, and the recoveries substantiating the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents on the basis of minor contradictions and discrepancies, which is unjustified and contrary to the law as well as the facts and material available on record. 4.1. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the testimony of five prosecution eyewitnesses, namely, Nanda PW.17, Bheru PW.6, Pokhar PW.2, Jeetiya @ Jeetu PW.9, and Omkar PW.20, who were present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. Their presence at the site was explained and probable, being members of the complainant's family/agricultural field. While minor discrepancies existed regarding sequence of blows and attribution of weapons, the broad substratum remained consistent; the accused persons (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (5 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] formed an unlawful assembly, armed with lathis and kulhadis, and inflicted injuries on the deceased.
4.2. It was further submitted that Shravan PW-1, being present at the spot, furnished a first-hand account of the assault, specifically naming the principal accused and describing the weapons and overt acts. His testimony remained consistent with the FIR and found corroboration from Pokhar PW-2 and Kajod PW-3. Though minor discrepancies emerged in cross-examination, no contradiction on material particulars was elicited, thereby rendering them reliable witness whose depositions inspire confidence.
4.3. It was also submitted that Banne Singh (PW-19), the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, deposed that during the course of investigation he identified Nanda (PW-17), Bheru (PW-6), Jeetiya (PW-9), Pokhar (PW-2), Omkar (PW-20) & Dakhi as eyewitnesses of the incident in question. Although the presence of Dakhi could not be duly established, the remaining eyewitnesses have been examined and their testimonies substantially corroborate the prosecution version, and therefore deserve due consideration.
4.4. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Head Constable Mohanlal (PW-5), on reaching the spot, recorded the statement of injured Goru (Ex.P-4), wherein he categorically named all the accused, consistent with the FIR, the complainant, the other eyewitnesses, and his own testimony. It was further urged that PW-6, PW-9, and PW-20 though not injured, corroborated the prosecution version by proving the presence of (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (6 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] the accused, the aftermath of the incident, and material documents like the site plan and seizure memos, thereby lending ample support to the prosecution case.
4.5. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that Dr. Gulabchand PW-11, who conducted the postmortem examination and proved the report (Ex.P-7), deposed that the deceased had sustained 19 injuries in all, and specifically opined that the head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He opined that the cause of death was shock resulting from the said head injury.
4.5.1. It was further submitted that Dr. Gulabchand also examined Shravan, the complainant (PW-1), and proved his injury report (Ex.P-8). Such medical findings align with the testimony of PW-1, the FIR, and the dying declaration, thereby furnishing strong corroboration to the prosecution case that the accused- respondents assaulted deceased Goru and Shravan with deadly weapons, resulting in the fatal injuries which caused Goru's death. 4.6. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that recoveries were effected by Investigating Officer Banne Singh (PW-19) at the instance of the accused-respondents, including a lakdi (Ex.P-17) at the instance of accused Nanu, kulhadis at the instance of accused Bheru and Nanda, as well as lathis recovered from other accused persons. All the recovered weapons were duly sealed, sent for forensic examination, and the FSL report has been placed on record as Ex.P-45. It was urged that the recoveries, coupled with the forensic report, lend further corroboration to the (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (7 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] prosecution version and firmly connect the accused-respondents with the commission of the crime in question.
4.7. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, contended that the learned Trial Court, while delivering the impugned judgment of acquittal, failed to duly appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. The cumulative effect of the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the dying declaration, the medical opinion, the scientific reports, and the depositions of prosecution witnesses forms a consistent and corroborative chain of evidence which unmistakably establishes the guilt of the accused-respondents. It was urged that the learned Trial Court did not apply the settled principles of law correctly, thereby rendering the impugned judgment vitiated by serious legal infirmities. Hence, the judgment deserves to be interfered with and quashed, and the accused-respondents deserve to be convicted in accordance with law.
5. Per Contra, Ms. Aditi Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-respondents while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, submitted that the prosecution case was having serious legal infirmities, in the light of which the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of acquittal by granting benefit of doubt to the accused- respondents.
5.1. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court rightly discarded the prosecution evidence, of the 5 alleged eyewitnesses who were all either related or interested witnesses and whose (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (8 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] testimonies suffered from material contradictions regarding the identity of the assailants, the fatal blow, the weapons used, and the sequence of events; some even admitted in cross-examination that they arrived after the occurrence or lacked a clear vantage point. Such inconsistencies strike at the very root of the prosecution case, and in the absence of a consistent substratum of truth, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the ocular evidence and recording acquittal.
5.1.1. It was also submitted that Shravan (PW-1), on the basis of whose information Ex.P-21 was prepared, initially stated that Jeetu and Pokhar were present at the place of incident and had intervened to save them. However, in his examination-in-chief he contradicted himself by deposing that though the entire village had gathered, no one except him intervened. Likewise, Pokhar (PW-2) in his examination-in-chief stated that accused Nanu, Gheesa, and Bheru were armed with kulhadis while the others carried lathis; yet, in his re-examination, he categorically stated that he had not seen any beating incident. Similarly, Jeetiya alias Jeetu (PW-9) denied witnessing any assault on Goru and, contrary to the prosecution version, deposed that Shravan never informed where Goru had been taken when he (Shravan) himself was found injured. Such contradictions and inconsistencies render the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses unreliable and incapable of forming the basis of conviction.
5.1.2. It was further submitted that Bheru (PW-6), Nanda (PW-
17), and Omkar (PW-20), who were also projected as (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (9 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] eyewitnesses by the Investigating Officer Banne Singh (PW-19), have in fact contradicted the prosecution version and furnished mutually inconsistent accounts. Significantly, PW-17 Nanda went so far as to depose that the deceased, along with others, had gone to fight with the accused-respondents, whereas PW-6 Bheru and PW-20 Omkar outrightly denied having witnessed the alleged occurrence. Such divergent and inconsistent testimonies seriously undermine the credibility of the prosecution case. 5.1.3. It was also submitted that Shanti (PW-18), whose alleged assault is said to have triggered the entire incident, deposed that she accompanied Goru to Nanda ki Gubadi, where the incident took place and the accused persons dragged him inside. According to her, she personally witnessed the occurrence. However, this version directly contradicts the testimony of Shravan (PW-1), the complainant, who stated that the incident began outside the gubadi and only thereafter was Goru dragged inside by the accused. Significantly, neither of the two named each other in their testimonies as having been present at the spot, which further undermines their credibility as eyewitnesses. These mutually inconsistent accounts create serious doubt regarding the very origin and place of occurrence of the incident. In such circumstances, where eyewitnesses contradict one another on material particulars, it is difficult to accept one version over the other, and consequently, the benefit of doubt must necessarily enure to the accused-respondents.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (10 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] 5.2. It was further submitted that the so-called dying declaration is unreliable, as it is inconsistent with the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding both, the assailant and the weapon used; the circumstances and timing of its recording are doubtful, particularly in the absence of a proper medical certificate of fitness; the language employed indicates tutoring and contains improbable narration; and, most significantly, it lacks independent corroboration from medical or forensic evidence, thereby rendering it unjustified in law, to form the basis of conviction. 5.2.1. It was also submitted that though two police officers, namely Mohanlal PW.5 and Harishankar PW.7, were present at the place of incident when the dying declaration was recorded, none of the said officers have cared to endorse the dying declaration Ex.P. 4, which casts a doubt on the credibility of the alleged dying declaration. It was further urged that no evidence has been put forward with respect to the fitness of the deceased at the time of giving the statement; thus, the same shakes the prosecution story.
5.2.2. It was further submitted that the prosecution failed to produce Deva and Bheru s/o Kajod, though cited as witnesses, and no explanation was offered for their non-examination. Such withholding of material witnesses creates an adverse inference against the prosecution. It was also submitted that the testimony of Mohanlal (PW-5) suffers from material contradictions, thereby rendering his evidence unreliable and further weakening the prosecution case.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (11 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] 5.2.3. It was further submitted that PW-6, in his cross- examination, stated that Goru disclosed the names of the assailants and the weapons used, but in the same breath also admitted that he saw the dead body of Goru and stated, "लाश लाने के बाद मेरी निशानी कराई थी". This creates two possibilities: either PW-6 signed the alleged dying declaration after the dead body was brought, or the dying declaration was not recorded in his presence at all. In either case, the credibility of this witness stands seriously impeached, and thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly disbelieved such testimony.
5.2.4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Jeetu (PW-9) initially deposed that he did not know what Goru stated as he was standing at a distance, yet later introduced the names of the accused-respondents, thereby contradicting himself. Coupled with other material discrepancies in his testimony, his evidence is unreliable and unworthy of credence.
5.2.5. With respect to PW-20 Omkar, it was submitted that although he claimed that his statement was recorded on the very next day of the incident in question; the record reflects that it was in fact recorded belatedly on 12.10.1987, whereas the incident had allegedly occurred on 16.09.1987. This glaring discrepancy between his deposition and the record, coupled with the unexplained delay, renders him a doubtful and procured witness, not a genuine witness to the alleged dying declaration, thereby further undermining the credibility of Ex.P-4.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (12 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] 5.2.6. It was further submitted that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to establish the fitness of the deceased to render the alleged statement, as no medical certificate or proof of mental and physical condition was brought on record. This omission fatally undermines the reliability of the alleged dying declaration.
5.2.7. It was thus submitted that the alleged dying declaration (Ex.P-4) is riddled with contradictions, delayed and discrepant witness statements, absence of medical certification of fitness, and lack of corroboration, rendering it wholly unreliable. The learned Trial Court had rightly discarded it and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.
5.3. It was further submitted that the alleged recoveries are inconsistent with the prosecution evidence--while PW-19 claimed a lakdi was recovered from Nanu, PW-1 attributed a kulhadi to him; likewise, a kulhadi was shown as recovered from Bheru though no witness assigned such a weapon to him. Such contradictions render the recoveries doubtful and devoid of evidentiary value.
5.3.1. It was submitted that the alleged recoveries stand discredited in light of the FSL report, as no blood was detected on the recovered kulhadi, and in respect of the lathis, either the quantity was insufficient for testing or the blood group remained undetermined, thereby failing to establish any nexus between the seized weapons and the crime in question.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (13 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] 5.3.2. It was also submitted that the recovery proceedings also suffer from material infirmities, inasmuch as of the two alleged recovery witnesses, Bholu was never produced before the Court, while the other, Jamnalal, was not subjected to any examination, thereby rendering the recoveries unsupported by any independent and reliable testimony.
5.4. It was submitted that given the contradictions in evidence, the unreliable dying declaration, and infirm recoveries, the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal, which does not call for any interference in the instant appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
7. Before adverting to the merits of the appeal, this Court deems it appropriate to first examine the very foundation of the prosecution case, namely, the FIR and the oral report (Ex.P-21) given by Shravan PW.1. This Court observes that PW.1 has given contradictory statements regarding the preparation and submission of this report, initially stating that it was submitted to Moti Singh at the Police Station, and later claiming it was written at the Bus Stand. Such inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the reliability of his testimony. Furthermore, if a written report was indeed submitted, its absence from the record raises further questions about its authenticity. In view of these contradictions, (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (14 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] the evidentiary value of Ex.P-21, and the FIR Ex.P-7 lodged on its basis, is substantially undermined, and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
8. Having examined the genesis of the prosecution case, it is now necessary to scrutinize the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses who were projected as the backbone of the prosecution version. The prosecution produced twenty witnesses for examination, of whom PW-1 Shravan, PW-2 Pokhar, PW-6 Bheru, PW-9 Jeetu, PW-17 Nanda, and PW-18 Shanti were projected as eyewitnesses. A close scrutiny of their depositions reveals serious inconsistencies.
8.1. PW-1 Shravan, the complainant and alleged injured witness, deposed that Jeetu and Pokhar were present at the place of incident and intervened, yet in cross-examination admitted that except himself, no one else tried to intervene. He claimed the incident began outside Nanda ki Gubadi and that Goru was later dragged inside. His version is inconsistent with PW-18 Shanti, who categorically deposed that she accompanied Goru inside the gubadi where the assault took place. Notably, neither Shravan nor Shanti named each other as being present at the scene, thereby creating doubt in regard to both accounts.
8.2. PW-2 Pokhar, while initially deposing that he saw accused Nanu, Gheesa, and Bheru armed with kulhadis, later admitted in re-examination that he did not see the beating at all.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (15 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] 8.3. PW-9 Jeetu outrightly denied witnessing the assault, further undermining the prosecution case.
8.4. PW-6 Bheru and PW-20 Omkar, though cited as eyewitnesses by the Investigating Officer, contradicted themselves and furnished divergent accounts.
8.5. PW-17 Nanda went so far as to depose that the deceased and his party had attacked the accused-respondents, thus reversing the prosecution narrative.
8.6. It is a settled proposition that where eyewitnesses contradict each other on the very genesis, place, and manner of incident, their evidence cannot form the basis of conviction.
9. In view of such material contradictions in the ocular evidence, it is deemed appropriate to turn to the next crucial piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, namely, the dying declaration (Ex.P-4). This Court observes that the prosecution relied heavily on the alleged dying declaration of the deceased Goru recorded by PW-5 Head Constable Mohanlal; however, Ex.P-4 is fraught with infirmities inasmuch as no medical certificate of fitness was obtained prior to its recording, the accompanying police officers though present did not attest or endorse the declaration, PW-6 Bheru himself admitted that he signed the document after the body was brought thereby casting grave suspicion on its contemporaneity, and the very witnesses cited as present at the recording have contradicted one another on material particulars, rendering the declaration wholly unsafe for reliance.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (16 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] 9.1. In light of these infirmities, this Court is of the considered view that Dying Declaration Ex.P-4 does not inspire confidence. It is well settled in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1956, decided on 25.09.1957) and reaffirmed in P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka ((2003) 6 SCC 443, decided on 25.07.2003) that a dying declaration can be relied upon only if it is found to be voluntary, truthful, and free from any element of suspicion. When measured against this standard, the declaration in the present case falls short of the requisite reliability, and the learned Trial Court was therefore fully justified in disbelieving the same.
10. Once the dying declaration is found unreliable, the credibility of other supporting witnesses assumes even greater importance. In this context, the testimony of PW-20 Omkar requires close scrutiny.
10.1. This Court observes that PW-20 Omkar, projected as an eyewitness, deposed that 5-6 policemen were present at the place of occurrence; however, the record and the depositions of police witnesses establish that only Head Constable Mohanlal (PW-5) and L.C. Harishankar (PW-7) were present. This glaring inconsistency not only casts doubt on the genuineness of PW-20's version, but also raises a serious question as to whether he was actually present at the scene or was later introduced as a procured witness. Such a contradiction materially weakens the prosecution case by undermining the reliability of one of its alleged (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (17 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] eyewitnesses and further dilutes the evidentiary value of the ocular account.
10.2. This discrepancy also reflects adversely on the quality of investigation, inasmuch as the Investigating Officer failed to reconcile or explain the divergence between the record and the testimony of PW-20. The lack of clarity regarding the number and presence of police personnel at the crucial stage of recording the dying declaration creates an impression of careless or selective investigation, which adds to the doubt surrounding the prosecution case.
10.3. This Court further observes that the investigation in the present case suffers from the following serious deficiencies:
(i) Delay in recording statements - Material witnesses, including PW-20 Omkar, had their statements recorded nearly a month after the incident, casting doubt on their spontaneity and reliability.
(ii) Non-examination of cited witnesses - Witnesses such as Deva and Bheru s/o Kajod, though cited in the charge-sheet, were not produced during trial without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution case.
(iii) Contradictions in site plan - The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer does not align with the ocular testimonies, particularly regarding the place of occurrence and presence of villagers, and no effort was made to reconcile these discrepancies.
(iv) Defective recovery proceedings - The alleged recoveries are unsupported by independent testimony, as one recovery witness (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (18 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] was not examined and the other was not subjected to cross-
examination, rendering the seizures unreliable.
(v) Defective handling of dying declaration - No medical certification of the deceased's fitness was obtained at the time of recording Ex.P-4, and no independent witness was associated, thereby casting doubt on its authenticity.
These lapses go beyond mere irregularities and strike at the root of the prosecution case, reflecting a lack of fairness and thoroughness in investigation.
11. Having noted the serious lapses in the investigation, this Court now proceeds to examine the medical evidence, which though establishing the homicidal nature of death, must be seen in conjunction with other infirmities in the case. This Court observes that PW-11 Dr. Gulabchand opined that the deceased sustained nineteen injuries, with one head injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. While the medical evidence establishes that Goru's death was homicidal, it does not, by itself, fix culpability on the accused-respondents, especially when ocular and documentary evidence suffer from serious infirmities.
12. This Court further observes that the recoveries alleged to have been effected at the instance of the accused-respondents do not lend any support to the prosecution case. The FSL report failed to establish the presence of human blood of any identifiable group on the seized kulhadis and lathis. Moreover, of the two recovery witnesses, one was never produced before the Court while the (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (19 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992] other was not subjected to cross-examination, depriving the proceedings of independent corroboration. It is well settled that recovery evidence is only corroborative in nature and cannot by itself sustain a conviction when the primary evidence is doubtful (Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 7 SCC 781). In the present case, given that the ocular account and the alleged dying declaration are riddled with contradictions and infirmities, the uncorroborated recoveries cannot bolster the prosecution case and are, therefore, wholly unreliable.
13. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011, decided on 12.02.2024) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010, decided on 19.04.2024), as hereunder-:
Mallappa & Ors. (Supra):
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (20 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court." Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra):
"38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC 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 reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating 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 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."
39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (21 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
(c) 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."
14. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused- respondents, which in the given circumstances, is justified in law, because as per the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, to the effect that the judgment of the Trial Court can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the present case, the learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment had examined each and every witnesses at a considerable length and duly analysed the documents produced before it, coupled with examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
15. This Court also observes that the scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by the learned Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, and thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41205-DB] (22 of 22) [CRLA-116/1992]
16. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit case warranting any interference by this Court.
17. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 17.1. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S., each of the surviving accused-respondents are directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond each in the like amount, before the learned Trial Court, which shall be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the surviving accused- respondents, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as soon as they would be called upon to do so.
17.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
18. This Court is thankful to Ms. Aditi Sharma, who has rendered her assistance as Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the accused- respondents, in the present adjudication.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J skant/-
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:15:23 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:53:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)