[2025:RJ-JD:33435-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 131/1993 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Motilal son of Khetmal Ji, b/c Khatri, resident of Village Sayla, P.S. Sayla, District Jalore.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP Mr. S.P. Sharma with Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana Mr. Kaushal Sharma Mr. G.S. Rajpurohit HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Judgment

RESERVED ON :: 07.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :: 24.09.2025 (Per Hon’ble Sandeep Taneja, J.)

1. By way of instant criminal appeal, appellant-State has challenged the validity and legality of the judgment dated 16.09.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore (for short ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.60/1991, whereby accused-respondent Motilal has been acquitted for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 304-B IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.08.1991, accused- respondent after giving beating to his wife Pushpa and sons with iron handle of hand pump and considering them as dead, reached at Police Station Sayla and gave information of commission of offence to SHO Ram Lal (PW-11). The Memorandum of Statement (Ex.P/22), reads as under :

c;ku Jh eksrhyky s/o Jh [ksrkjke] dkSe [k=h] mez 30 lky] i”s kk pDdh pykuk] lk- lenMh+ eq- la- u- 61] rkjh[k 18-08-91 u/s 302 IPC, P.S.

lk;ykß eq- rk- 18@08@91 us nfj;k¶r ij tkfgj fd;k fd esjh “kknh iq’ik d/o dUgS;kyky dkSe [k=h lk- Qyksnh ds lkFk djhc 5 lky iow Z gqbZ Fkh “kknh ds ckn eSa esjh vkSjr dks lkFk gh j[krk Fkk “kknh ls djhc ,d ekg igys eSua s esjs firk }kjk cuk;s gq;s edku esa pDdh vkVk ihlus dh yxokbZ vkSj dke “kq: fd;k “kknh ds 2 ekg ckn esjh vkSjr iq’ik dks eSa lenMh+ lkFk yk;k Fkk tgka ckn lkFk gh jgrh Fkh esjs nks yM+ds gSa cM+k fiUVw mez djhc 3½ lky dk gS o mlls NksVk ujsUnz mez djhc 7 ekg dk gS esjh vkSjr v{kj esjk dguk ugha ekurh Fkh gekjs ?kj dks fn;s gq;s tsoj Hkh esjh iRuh us vius firk ds ?kj Mky fn;s vc vr% tqykbZ esa esjs NksVs lkys xksfoUn dh “kknh gkus s ls cM+k lkyk uUnfd”kksj ysus vk;k rc eSaus esjh iRuh o cPpksa dks Qykns h Hkts fn;s eSa ihNs “kknh ij x;k Fkk tgka ls “kknh gksus ds 3&4 jkst ckn eSa e; esjh iRuh o cPpksa dks tks/kiqj yk;k tgka ls tfj;s cl lk;yk vk;s tk/s kiqj eSua s esjh vkSjr dks lenMh+ gksdj lk;yk vkus dks dgk rks euk fd;k lk;yk vkus ds ckn ejs h vkSjr esjs ls V s dgrh cPpksa dks j[kks vkt djhc 5 cts esjh vkSjr ckgj xbZ fdl ds ogka xbZ irk ugha okfil djhc ,d ?kaVk ckn vkbZ o [kkuk cuk;k esjs fy;s f[kpM+h cukbZ [kqn ds ikiM+ksa dk lkx o Qqyds cuk;s eSua s [kkuk [kk fy;k esjs vkSjr NkVs s cPps dks ih.kk esa lqyk;k gqvk Fkk cM+k cPpk fiUVw o esjh iRuh ikys eas cSBs Fks eSa esjh iRuh ls rax vk x;k Fkk eq>s ,d ne jhl vkbZ rc eSua s esjh vkSjr o cPpksa dks tku ls ekjuk mfpr le>dj jlksbZ ds ikl iM+s gSUM iai ds ykgs k ds gSUMy ls esjh vkSjr ds /kM+k&/kM+ flj esa o eqag ij pkVs sa ekjha og cgs k”s k gks xbZ rc fiUVw ds flj esa nks ekjh og Hkh csgks”k gks x;k fQj ujsUnz ds iSj ij o flj ij ekjh rc og Hkh ej x;k rhuksa dks ejs le>dj lh/kk vkids ikl vk;k gwa ftl yksgk ds gSUMy ls ejs h vkSjr o cPpksa dk s ekjs gSa ekSdk ij gh j[kdj vk;k gwa

2.1 Based on the above statement, a case was registered under Section 302 IPC on 18.08.1991 (Ex.P/23).

2.2 The case of the prosecution is that due to such beating, wife of accused-respondent Pushpa and one son namely Narendra died. 2.3 After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused- respondent under Sections 302, 307 IPC and subsequently additional charge was framed against him under Section 304-B IPC. Accused-respondent denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence.

2.4 During trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and got 29 documents exhibited i.e. Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/29. Statement of accused- respondent was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. In defence, the accused-respondent got 9 documents exhibited i.e. Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/9.

2.5 Upon ap