Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2597
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, SANGEETA SHARMA, JJ.
Phool Ji S/o Shri Oonkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 1993
Decided On : 14-10-2025
For the Appellants : Bhagat Dadhich, K.C. Sharma
For the Respondent: Chandra Shekhar Ojha
The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, failing which the accused should be acquitted.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction - Appellants sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and two years for destruction of evidence - Court emphasized the requirement of an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt (Paras 5, 10, 12, 24) - The prosecution's case was based solely on circumstantial evidence, including extra judicial confessions and recovery of materials, which the court found insufficient and weak (Paras 10, 17, 24) - The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the learned trial court's conviction was erroneous. (Paras 25, 26)
(B) Extra Judicial Confession - Requires careful scrutiny and corroboration from substantive evidence for validity (Para 16)
(C) Circumstantial Evidence - Must provide an unbroken chain leading to an inescapable conclusion of guilt (Paras 11, 24) - The absence of reliable witnesses and evidence resulted in acquittal of the appellants. (Paras 26) -
Result: Appeals allowed and appellants acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants convicted under ipc 302 and 201. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments challenging the prosecution's evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court analysis of circumstantial evidence; insufficiency of evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 25) |
| 5. appeal allowed; conviction quashed, appellants acquitted. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
SANGEETA SHARMA, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 22.05.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.83/92 whereby the appellants were held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 , 201 of IPC . For the offences under , the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months’ rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 201 , the appellants were sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months’ rigorous imprisonment.
2. The charges for the offences under Section 302 , 201 of IPC were framed against the accused persons to which they denied and demanded Trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 41 documents. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the commission of offences and stated that they are falsely implicated.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.1990, appellant- accused Keshu and Phool Ji approached to PW-1 - Deep Shanker and tendered an extra judicial confession to the effect that they had murdered Poonam and Jassi along with the appellant Mangi Lal and Roopa. On the basis of above facts, an FIR was lodged and investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, Police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC and and the trial commenced accordingly. After hearing both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
4. At the outset of the hearing, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that accused-appellant Mangi Lal has passed away on 23.06.2007, in light of this submission, the appeal stands dismissed as abated qua the aforesaid deceased – accused Mangi Lal. In this view of the matter, the present appeal survives only qua the appellants Phool Ji, Keshu and Roopa.
5. During the arguments the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no previous enmity or quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons and there was no motive or intention for the appellant – accused to commit the murder of the deceased Jassi and Poonam. He further submitted that the prosecution case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence i.e. extra judicial confession, recovery of skeleton, hair clips, Kasiya, clothes and ashes of the burnt clothes of the deceased and identification proceeding etc. as there is no eye witness of the incident.
6. Learned counsel further asserted that the Court below has misread the evidence and misguided in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution established a convincing chain of circumstances based on material evidence and witnesses leading to the appellants’ conviction and sentence. He further argued that there exists glaring gaps in the evidence produced by the prosecution creating a doubt regarding the incident much less the appellants involvement in the alleged offence.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that for the prosecution to establish a case based on circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of events that leads to an inescapable conclusion of accused's guilt must be established leaving no r
