[2025:RJ-JD:34469-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 389/2003 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus

1. Shanker Singh S/o Laxman Singh Rawat, R/o Bhuriya Kheda Kalla Bhadeta, PS Jawaja, District Ajmer.

2. Chhagan Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh Rawat, R/o Village & Post Durgabaas, PS Beawar City, at present Fatehpuriya, Sendra Road, Beawar, District Ajmer.

3. Pravin Singh S/o Lal Singh Rawat, R/o Bhuriya Kheda Kalla, PS Jawaja, District Ajmer.

4. Jai Singh S/o Rajendra Singh Rawat, R/o Biliyawas Borela, PS Bhim, District Rajsamand.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoriya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Judgment

Per Hon’ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

05/08/2025 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 14.08.2002, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.100/2001, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences punishable under Sections

120-B, 302, 302/34 IPC.

Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 15.05.2021, complainant Mahendra Singh (PW-1) submitted a written report at Police Station Bhim to the effect that he along with Jai Singh, Pintu & Shanker Singh visited the residence of Moti Singh for dinner. Between 9 PM and 10 PM, a young boy arrived there and asked about Pintu. At that time, Pintu also arrived there and they subsequently left together. The complainant, Jai Singh and Shanker Singh can identify that boy. On the said night, Pintu did not return. The following morning, complainant’s uncle Udai Singh informed them that the dead-body of Pintu was discovered lying in the field. It was alleged that his brother Pintu was murdered by that boy, allegedly with the assistance of others, by using a sharp edged weapon.

On the aforesaid complaint, Police registered a case against the accused-respondents and started investigation. On completion of investigation, Police filed challan against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 302, 120B/34 IPC.

Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302, 302/34, 120B IPC to the accused respondents. They denied the charge and sought trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twenty-nine witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case.

The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they were confronted with the evidence adduced against them during the course of trial to which they denied and stated that they did not commit any offence. They were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.

Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 14.08.2002 acquitted the accused-respondents from offence under Sections 302, 302/34, 120B IPC. Hence this appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-

respondents.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the statements of the witnesses in right perspective manner and hence committed grave and serious error of law in acquitting the accused-respondents from the offence under Sections 302, 302/34, 120B IPC. It is further contended that this case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, which includes the evidence of last seen theory, the recovery of weapon and clothes as well as the establishment of motive by the prosecution, but the learned trial court discarded the evidence of last seen as well as other circumstantial evidence and recovery of weapon. It is submitted that learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has neither appreciated the evidence of the prosecution, nor