JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred assailing the judgment dated 04.09.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as “learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 41/2024 (C.I.S. No. 120/2024) whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentenced life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. The relevant facts in brief, as narrated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, are that on 05.03.2024, Rikhab Chand Sancheti (PW-1), lodged a written report at Police Station Dargah, Ajmer, stating that on the preceding day at about 8:40 PM, while returning to his residence and crossing from the nearby Shri Sambhavnath Bhagwan Jain Temple, he observed the temple pujari running down from the staircase of the temple premises in an injured and blood-stained condition. Upon inquiry regarding his condition, the pujari informed him that the side gate of the temple had been bolted from inside, and that someone had knocked at the door. When he opened the door, an unknown boy requested water to drink. As he turned back to fetch water, the said boy suddenly assaulted him with an iron rod; and on raising an alarm, the assailant fled from the spot.

3. It is further submitted that in the meantime Farukh (PW-3), reached the spot, and both of them (PW -1 & 3) took the injured pujari to the Emergency Ward of Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer. Subsequently, on the basis of the written report as submitted by the complainant, an FIR No. 58/2024 came to be registered at jurisdictional Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 307 of the IPC. Investigation was thereafter undertaken. However, the injured pujari succumbed to death on 11.03.2024, whereupon the offence under Section 302 IPC was added and the present appellant was charged accordingly. The charge under Section 302 IPC was read over and explained to the appellant, who denied the same and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and exhibited 71 documents in support of its case. The appellant consistently pleaded not guilty.

4. It is contended that, without due consideration of the material available on record, the learned Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of conviction, which is vitiated by material irregularities and is unsustainable in law. Learned counsel contended that, as per the relevant medical records, the injuries sustained by Shankarlal Pujari were opined to be simple in nature. It is emphasized that the injured was discharged from the hospital on 06.03.2024, i.e., within approximately 50 hours of admission, in a healthy condition and thereafter died on 11.03.2024. The cause of death has been recorded as “Myocardial infarction”, i.e., a cardiac condition, and not as a consequence of the injuries allegedly inflicted upon him as referred to in the FIR.

5. It is further argued that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the entire prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, and that albeit the occurrence having allegedly taken place at a busy location i.e. Lakhan Kothdi near Sancheti Bhawan, no independent eyewitness has been examined. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant can not be described as a “boy”, as in the contents of FIR the complainant mentioned that the offender was a boy, and the appellant was a grown man, aged approximately 35 years at the time of incident. It is also noteworthy that the appellant has not been named in the FIR. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to establish any direct nexus between the appellant and the alleged offence. With regard to the electronic evidence, it is contended that the CCTV footage allegedly recovered from Hotel Izhar, Lakhan Kotdi, is unreliable, as it pertains to a location (60-80 m. away