[2025:RJ-JP:47144-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 624/1999 Hakim Singh son of Nohbat Singh, resident of Kalsad, Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur.

(At present in Sevar Jail, Bharatpur)

----Accused-Appellant Versus The State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta with Mr. Sarvat Alam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Judgment

21/11/2025 (Per Hon’ble Mahendar Kumar Goyal,J)

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated

15.09.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.13/1994 whereby, the accused-appellant (for short, ‘appellant’)

has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Section 302 IPC: Life Imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine: in default whereof, 6 months’ simple imprisonment.

The relevant facts in brief are that based on the written report dated 13.03.1994 (Ex. P1) submitted by Shri Bachu Singh (PW-1)- brother of the deceased Tehri Singh, an FIR No.50/1994 came to be registered at Police Station Suroth, District Sawaimadhopur for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It was stated in the report that on 11.03.1994, his brother Tehri Singh did not return to his home and despite efforts, could not be traced on 12.03.1994. It was further stated that today i.e., 13.03.1994 at about 8:00 am, some passerby informed about a dead body lying near the river which was found to be of his brother-Tehri Singh. It was alleged that since, there were injuries on the body of his brother, somebody has assassinated him. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant and co-accused Happu @ Devi Singh under Section 302 and 201 IPC. Charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against the appellant whereas, against the co-accused-Devi Singh, charge under Section 302/34 and 201 IPC was framed. They pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. However, during the trial, the co-accused- Happu @ Devi Singh expired and the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court in the manner stated hereinabove.

Assailing the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant-

Shri Rinesh Gupta submits that the learned trial Court has erred in recording his conviction under Section 302 IPC based on conjectures and surmises in absence of any legally admissible evidence against him. He submits that the prosecution evidence suffers from contradictions on important aspects of the matter and is not trustworthy to record his conviction. Inviting attention of this Court towards the statement of the prosecution witnesses such as S/Shri Manohari (PW-7), Kirori (PW-8) and Sugar Singh (examined twice as PW-11 and PW-14), he would submit that their testimony with regard to extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before them does not inspire confidence and his conviction based upon it, is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that similarly, the evidence of ‘last seen’ relied upon by the learned trial Court for recording the finding of his conviction, is not reliable. Shri Gupta submits that undoubtedly, it is a case of circumstantial evidence wherein, the complete chain leading to conclusion of his guilt is totally missing. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 15.09.1999 be quashed and set aside and the appellant be acquitted from the charge framed against him. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raja Naykar V. State of Chhattisgarh:

(2024) 3 SCC 481.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the submissions and supporting the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the judgment impugned reveals that while rejecting the testimony of Sh. Bhagmal (PW-17)- father of the decea