Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, Chandra Shekhar Sharma, JJ.
Peera Ram S/o Sh Ragga Ji - Appellant
Versus
State of the Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2016
Decided On : 18-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. defense arguments regarding evidentiary gaps and lack of motive. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. respondent's position refuting defense arguments. (Para 19) |
| 4. legal requirements for proof in cases of circumstantial evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. assessment of witness credibility and medical evidence sufficiency. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. value of extra-judicial confession and unexplained forensic recoveries. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. rejection of insanity plea due to lack of evidence. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. establishing a complete chain of circumstances proving guilt. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. final confirmation of conviction and dismissal of appeal. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present D B Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Peera Ram S/o Shri Ragga Ji, under Section 374 Cr.P.C. assailing the validity of judgment dated 12.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore, (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 41/2012, whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused- appellant for the offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No.103/2012.
2. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court has sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3. Brief facts for deciding the present appeal are that the on 14.09.2012 at about 8:00 A.M. the complainant-Chatraram (PW- 06) lodged a written report (Ex. P-11) at Police Station Jhab, stating therein that on 13.09.2012 his nephew Mangaram after taking his meal had gone to sleep in the thatched shed situated in his agricultural field. It is alleged that during the night while Mangaram was sleeping in a said shed, he was inflicted with injuries by a sharp-edged weapon, as a result whereof, he died on the spot. The complainant-Chatraram further stated that he received information of the incident from Harjiram Kalbi and, upon reaching at the place of occurrence, he found the dead body of his nephew Mangaram lying there soaked in blood.
4. On the basis of the said information, a formal FIR No. 103/2012 (Exhibit P.21) was registered at Police Station, Jhab, Jalore against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 302 IPC.
5. After completion of investigation, Police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore from where the case was committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore.
6. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Section 302 IPC to the accused-appellant, who denied the same and sought for trial.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence from Exp. P-1 to P-27.
8. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances put to him, stating that the prosecution witnesses had deposed falsely against him on account of enmity and alleged that his neighbours intents to encroach upon his land. He further alleged that the police has not conducted a fair and proper investigation and that he was innocent. He further stated that Smt. Kailash had been married with Mangaram and no recovery was effected from Mangaram. In defence the accused-appellant examined Mangaram as DW-1 and did not lead any documentary evidence.
9. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid vide judgment dated 12.07.2016.
10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judg
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession, motive, and the principle of last seen together to prove the guilt of the ac....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime.
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain, with reasonable doubt favoring the accused.
Extra-judicial confessions require corroborative evidence to ensure reliability; circumstantial evidence must present a complete chain connecting the accused to the crime without reasonable doubt.
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a clear chain of evidence that excludes reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
