Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, JJ.
Mohit @ Monu S/o Harkesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 339, 367 of 2023
Decided On : 19-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Savita Nathawat, Naresh Kumar Singhal, Bantoo Mali
For the Respondents: Rajesh Choudhary, Sudesh Kumar Saini, Neha Goyal

The court affirmed the conviction of the defendants based on established evidence including eyewitness accounts and forensic links to the crime, despite challenges regarding witness reliability and procedural delays.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 449 - Conviction for murder and house trespass - Appellants convicted for strangulation and sentenced accordingly - Evidence presented includes eyewitness testimony, mobile records, and recovery of items linked to crime - Extra judicial confessions deemed credible despite challenge - Conflicting witness statements assessed for reliability. (Paras 1 to 52)

(B) Conviction and Sentencing - Establishment of guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt - Prosecution relies on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence, leading to conviction of both appellants. (Paras 1 to 52)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were accused of murdering Puranmal, with evidence suggesting premeditated murder involving intimate relationships and corroborative mobile communications - Eyewitness (minor) alleged to have witnessed the offense.

Findings of Court:
The court established the guilt of both appellants with corroborative evidence including mobile call records, a confession, and the recovery of the murder weapon - Convictions upheld with no grounds for appeal substantiated.

Issues: The court addressed the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the arguments against the procedural delays in witness statements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the evidence, including a child's testimony, was credible despite delays in statements, and the concurrent relationship between the appellants formed a coherent narrative of the murder.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. murder allegations and fir details. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
2. prosecution's evidence against appellants. (Para 9 , 10 , 12)
3. defense's challenge to prosecution's evidence. (Para 11 , 16 , 18)
4. assessment and evaluation of evidence. (Para 19 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. credibility of witnesses and delay in evidence. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
6. conclusion on appeals and trial court's judgment. (Para 52)

JUDGMENT :

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.

1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 12.10.2023 whereby the learned Additional Session Judge, No.2, Gangapur City in Session Case No.01/2021 (hereinafter, “trial Court”) convicted the appellants-Priyanka & Mohit @ Monu under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “ IPC ”) and sentenced them as under:-

Accused Appellant	Offence	Sentence	Sentence in Default
Priyanka	Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC	Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-	06 months of Simple Imprisonment
Mohit @ Monu	Section 449 of IPC	05 Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-	03 Months of Simple Imprisonment
	Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC	Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-	06 Months of Simple Imprisonment

2. Before dealing with the merits of the appeal, it would be relevant to succinctly outline the pertinent facts and allegations levelled against the appellants and the appropriate evidence led by the prosecution.

Factual Aspects: -

3. PW-1 Hukam Singh, lodged a written complaint, Exhibit P-1, stating that on 06.01.2019, the deceased Puranmal Bairwa slept with his wife appellant-Priyanka and their children in a room at Anjani Vihar, Gangapur City, near R.G.M. Hospital. It was stated in the FIR that someone called the deceased at night and thereafter the deceased went outside and at around 5:00 AM, appellant-Priyanka attempted to unlock the door, but the door was found to be locked from outside. The appellant-Priyanka than called her neighbor, PW-3 Bhedram, who unlocked the door and found the dead body of the deceased lying in a shed. The FIR further states that the deceased was taken to C.P. Hospital, Gangapur City, where the doctors declared him dead. The dead body of the deceased was subsequently taken to his village, Jahira, where family members of the deceased observed marks on his neck and blood oozing from his ear, raising suspicion about commission of murder, by strangulating.

4. The written complainant, Exhibit P-1, also mentions that the deceased's eight-year-old son, Nitesh, stated that someone called his father and thereafter the deceased went outside and thereafter did not return. The report bears the signatures of persons namely, Phool Chand Meena, Ramraj Meena, PW.3 Bhedram Bairwa and of complainant PW.1 Hukam Singh. It was further stated that the appellant-Priyanka was present before P.S, Sadar Gangapur City, District Sawai Madahopur and submitted a Samsung phone belonging to deceased Puranmal to PW-19 Kedarnath Gurjar, First Investigating Officer and the aforesaid report also bears the signature of appellant-Priyanka and PW.1 Hukam Singh.

5. The report was than forwarded to P.S. Sadar, Gangapur City and subsequently an FIR No.09/2019 came to be registered under Section 302 of the IPC .

6. Following the investigation, the police charged the appellants with the commission of offence under Sections 302 and 449, read with Section 34 of the IPC . The learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.02.2020, framed charges against the appellants under /34 and 449 of the and alternatively under Section 302 of the .

7. The prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses, while the appellants offered no specific defence in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., instead denied the prosecution's case in its entirety and did not examine any witness.

8. After trial, the learned Trial Court by impugned judgment dated 12.10