SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manoj Kumar Garg, Ravi Chirania, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar S/o. Mahendra - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2016
Decided On : 08-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana
For the Respondent: Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP

The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must provide a conclusive link to the accused's guilt; mere allegations and contradictions among witnesses do not suffice for a conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment based on circumstantial evidence - The absence of direct evidence against the accused and serious contradictions in witness testimony undermined the conviction. (Paras 19-29)

(B) Criminal Evidence - Testimony evaluation - The court highlighted the significance of corroborating evidence in circumstantial cases, emphasizing that mere allegations cannot substantiate a conviction without supporting documents or witness confirmations. (Paras 21-22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of killing the deceased, allegedly due to a personal vendetta involving the deceased's wife. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including statements of two witnesses who presented conflicting narratives regarding the incident. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:
The trial court failed to address crucial inconsistencies in witness statements and disregarded the lack of eye-witness accounts, leading to a conviction deemed unsupported by reliable evidence. (Paras 27-28)

Issues: The primary questions involved whether the evidence presented supported the conviction and if the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the flawed testimonies. (Paras 29-30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that convictions based on circumstantial evidence require a conclusive and coherent linkage of facts, which the prosecution did not establish in this case, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt. (Paras 28-32)

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was overturned, ordering the release of the appellant if no other charges exist. (Paras 39-41)

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and facts (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments by the appellant's counsel (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. court's observations on evidence (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. discussion of revenge theory (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. final judgment and orders (Para 39 , 40 , 41)

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Chirania, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by appellant Sanjay Kumar against the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No.83/2015, titled as “State of Rajasthan Vs. Sanjay Kumar” whereby the learned court below convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one year’s additional simple imprisonment.

2. In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that a written report (Exhibit-P/1) dated 20.4.2015 was lodged by one Sanjeet Jha (complainant) to the SHO, Police Station, Pindwara, District Sirohi stating therein that he is residing from last more than 23 years in Pindwara and his village-mate, namely, Madan Jha (deceased herein) also resides close to his house from last 15 years; who works in a factory, named, Choudhary Industry.

3. By the aforesaid written report, he further informed the SHO, that the accused-Sanjay Kumar in the past attempted to make illicit relationship with Smt. Ranju Jha, wife of deceased-Madan Jha and due to this, there was an altercation between them in past, which was reported by Madan Jha (deceased) and Smt. Ranju Jha to the police and on account of this, the accused Sanjay Kumar had enmity with the deceased. He further stated that on 19.4.2015 Ranju Jha told him (complainant) that around 7:00 pm accused-Sanjay Kumar came to her house in a Pick-up Van and threatened that today he will kill her husband-Madan Jha (deceased) after he leaves the factory. Around 9:50 pm, as per the complainant, he received an information that some Pick-Up vehicle had hit Madan Jha, who then was taken to hospital in an injured condition, where he died.

4. On the written report, FIR No.123/2015 was registered at P.S. Pindwara, District Sirohi against accused Sanjay Kumar Mali S/o. Mahendra Mali for offence under Section 302 IPC. The written report (Exhibit-P/1) is reproduced as under :-

^^eq> çkFkÊ Jh lathr >k iq= v tkfr czkgE.k fuoklh l‚<k ftyk egksrjh usiky dk fuosnu gS fd eS fiNys 23 o"kZ ls fi.MokMk esa esjs ifjokj lfgr jgrk gw¡A esjs gh xkao dk Jh enu >k iq= jktsoj >k tkfr czkgE.k tks fiNys 15 o"kZ ls ?kkaphokMk fi.MokMk esa vius ifjokj lfgr jgrk gS rFkk pkSèkjh bUMªlVht fljksgh jksM esa ukSdjh djrk gSA enu >k ds iMkSl esa igys lat; iq= egsUæ th ekyh fuoklh tkuhiqj ftyk flrke<h+ fcgkj jgrk Fkk ml njE;ku lat; ekyh us enu >k dh iRuh Jhefr jatw >k ds lkFk voSèk lEcUèk cukus dk ç;kl fd;k ftldk Jh enu >k dks irk pyus ij enu >k rFkk lat; ds chp vkil esa >xMk gqvkA ftldh fjiksVZ iqoZ esa enu >k o jatw >k }kjk Fkkus ij nh xbZ Fkh mlds ckn ls lat; ekyh us enu >k ls jath'k j[kus 'kq: dj fn;k vkt ls djhc pkj fnu igys lat; ekyh us enu ds lkFk >xMk dj mls tku ls ekjus dh èkedh nh Fkh tks ckr enu }kjk eq>s crkus ij eSus rFkk gekjs rjQ ds yksxks us lat; dks le>k;k fnukad 19@04@15 dks enu dh ifRu jatw >k us eq>s crk;k dh vHkh 7%00 ih,e ij lat; viuh fidi xkMh ysdj esjs ?kj vk;k Fkk rFkk eq>s èkedh nh dh rsjs ifr dks ukSdjh ls NqVVs gh tku ls ekj nwaxkA Qhj FkksMh nsj ckn djhc 9%50 ih,e ij eq>s lqpuk feyh dh enu dks fjdks ds ikl jksM ij fdlh fidvi xkMh us Vddj ekj nh gSA enu dks ?kk;y voLFkk esa vLirky fi.MokMk ysdj vk;s rks eSa Hkh vLirky igqapkA rc enu dh ekSr gks pqdh FkhA eq>s lansg gksus ij eS lat; tks gkmflax cksMZ fi.MokMk esa jgrk gS rFkk fiUVw esokMk dh fidvi xkMh vkj ts 38 th, 1818 pykrk gS ds ?kj igqapk rks lat; vius ?kj ij feyk rFkk mldh fidvi xkMh Hkh Äj ds vkxs [kMh ehyh xkMh dks eSusa ns[kk rks xkMh ds vkxs cEij ij rktk [kjksap rFkk bUtu dh tkyh rkth VqVh gqbZ



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top