1. Assault on temple pujari with iron rod — Subsequent death — Initial FIR under Sections 341, 323, 307 IPC — Section 302 added after death. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 672
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, SAMEER JAIN, JJ.
Kalu, Son Of Bhima Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 445 of 2025
Decided On : 12-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Nonit Hatila, Mr. Ashish Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP, Mr. Naresh Gupta, PP, Ms. Neha Goyal.
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Nonit Hatila, Mr. Ashish Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP, Mr. Naresh Gupta, PP, Ms. Neha Goyal.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of events. Absence of a medical nexus between simple injuries and death, coupled with contradictory evidence regarding the weapon and unverified electronic records, entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence - Cause of death cited as cardiac condition rather than injuries inflicted - Injuries opined as simple and victim discharged from hospital before death - Absence of medical evidence establishing a direct and proximate nexus between alleged assault and death - Essential ingredient of culpable homicide not proved. (Paras 8, 14)
(B) Law of Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Chain of circumstances must be complete and exclude every hypothesis except guilt - Incomplete chain due to lack of eyewitnesses, contradiction in nature of weapon used, and doubtful recovery of articles from remote locations - Conviction cannot be sustained on conjectures. (Paras 9, 10, 13, 14)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 27 and 65B - Recovery of weapon and electronic evidence - Recovery of a stone from an open road corner contrary to FIR description of an iron rod - CCTV footage from a remote location not corroborated by site plan or forensic examination - Failure to conclusively identify the accused in footage renders the evidence unreliable. (Paras 10, 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
An assault was reported where a priest was attacked with an iron rod. The victim was admitted to a hospital, discharged after approximately 50 hours, and subsequently died. The cause of death was recorded as a cardiac condition (Myocardial infarction). The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a blood-stained stone and CCTV footage from a nearby hotel, to convict the appellant for murder.
Findings of Court:
The court found material contradictions between the FIR and the recovered weapon, a lack of medical nexus between the simple injuries and the cardiac death, and unreliable electronic evidence due to the absence of forensic examination and significant site plan discrepancies.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and whether there was a proximate nexus between the alleged assault and the death of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Where the medical cause of death is determined to be independent of the injuries (cardiac event versus simple injuries) and the evidence chain contains significant gaps regarding the weapon used and the reliability of electronic evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction quashed and set aside; appellant acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argues injuries simple, death due to cardiac condition, no eyewitnesses, unreliable CCTV and recoveries; prosecution contends trial court properly appreciated evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Prosecution failed to prove direct nexus between injuries and cardiac death; circumstantial evidence incomplete; contradictions in weapon recovery and CCTV footage; no eyewitnesses. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. In circumstantial evidence cases, chain must be complete, exclude every hypothesis except guilt; suspicion cannot replace proof; recovery and medical evidence must be cogent. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed; appellant acquitted and ordered to be released; directed to furnish personal bond under Section 437-A CrPC. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. What are the conditions for establishing guilt based solely on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every other hypothesis, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for innocence. (Para 12 )
7. Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence does not establish a nexus between injuries and death?
No. Without cogent medical evidence linking the injuries to the cause of death, the essential ingredient of culpable homicide remains unproved. (Para 8 )
8. What is the effect of contradictions between the weapon described in the FIR and the actual recovery?
Material contradictions between the FIR's version of the weapon and the recovered item strike at the root of the prosecution case, rendering the recovery dubious. (Para 10 )
9. When is electronic evidence like CCTV footage considered unreliable?
When it is from a remote location, not corroborated by site plans, the device is not sent for forensic examination, and the person in the footage is not conclusively identified. (Para 11 )
10. Can suspicion replace proof in a criminal case?
No. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof; the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 13 )
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
