Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kesra Ram And Anr vs State on 6 August, 2026
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur, Bhuwan Goyal
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 429/2002
CNR: RJHC010158942002 | URN: CRLA / 1065U / 2002
1. Kesra Ram S/o Sh. Mangla Ram, aged about 37 years, R/o
village Satasar, District Bikaner.
2. Chima Ram S/o Sh. Jalu Ram, aged about 45 years, R/o
Lalamdesar Bada, District Bikaner (Abated on 24.04.2019).
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)
1. Date of conclusion of argument 03.08.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was 03.08.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
operative part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2026
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred under
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the
accused-appellants, assailing the legality and validity of the
judgment dated 12.04.2002 passed by the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner (hereinafter
referred to as “the learned trial court”) in Sessions Case No.
36/2001- State vs. Kesraram & Ors., whereby the learned trial
court, though acquitted the co-accused, namely, Bhajanlal, of the
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (2 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 449 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, but convicted and sentenced the accused-
appellants namely, 1. Kesra Ram and 2. Chima Ram for the
offences as under:-
302/34 Life imprisonment, along with In default of payment of fine,
IPC a fine of Rs. 15,00/- each to further undergo Two
Month’s Rigorous
imprisonment to each of the
Appellants449 Five Year Rigorous In default of payment of fine
IPC imprisonment to further undergo one Month
with a Fine of Rs.500/- each additional Rigorous
imprisonment to each of the
Appellants.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, the accused-
appellant No.2, Chima Ram, expired. Consequently, vide order
dated 24.04.2019, the appeal preferred on his behalf stood
abated. Hence, the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant
No.1 Kesra Ram has been heard.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 08.10.1999 at about 12:00
noon, the complainant, Jeevan Ram, appeared before Police
Station Chhatargarh, Bikaner and orally reported that his sister,
Meera, was married to Ramchandra, who resided along with his
family at his agricultural field (Dhani) situated in Chak No.1 L.K.D.
It was alleged that there was a long-standing boundary dispute
between Ramchandra and the accused persons, and about five or
six days prior to the incident, the accused-appellants had
assaulted Meera on account of the said dispute. At the relevant
time, the complainant had gone to Samarda for grazing cattle.
Upon knowing about the said incident of assault, he returned on
the evening of the day before the occurrence to meet his sister –
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (3 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
Meera, while Ramchandra had gone to Chak No.2 P.B. to visit his
brother. On that night, Meera, her mother-in-law, the children, and
the complainant – Jeevan Ram, stayed at the agricultural field
(Dhani). After having their dinner, they all retired for the night and
slept in the Dhani.
It was further alleged that on 08.10.1999 at about 6:00
a.m., the accused persons, namely, Chima Ram, Mukha Ram and
Kesra Ram, came from the direction of Chima Ram’s Dhani. Chima
Ram was armed with an axe (kulhari), whereas Mukha Ram and
Kesra Ram were having lathis in their hands. On their arrival,
Chima Ram exhorted his companions to kill Meera stating her a
raand of Ramchandra and inflicted an axe blow on her head, while
the other accused assaulted her with lathis on her hands and legs
with the intention of causing her death. When the complainant
attempted to intervene, the accused chased him, compelling him
to flee towards a nearby hill (Tibba). It was also alleged that when
Meera’s mother-in-law tried to rescue her, Kesra Ram caught hold
of her and dragged her aside, thereby preventing her from
intervening.
According to the prosecution, after assaulting Meera, the
accused persons initially proceeded towards their Dhani but
shortly thereafter returned and again threatened that Meera
should not be allowed to survive. They again assaulted Meera and
also attempted to attack the complainant, who managed to escape
to the nearby Dhani of Bhagirath. Thereafter, the complainant
went to the village of Keshu Ram and informed his brother-in-law,
Keshu Ram, and other family members about the incident. They
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (4 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
accompanied him back to the agricultural field (Dhani), where
they found Meera lying dead.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a formal FIR
No.172/1999 (Ex.P-15) came to be registered at Police Station
Chhatargarh, Bikaner for the offence under Sections 302,448,34
of the Indian Penal Code.
5. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a
charge-sheet against the accused-appellants for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 449 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, before the Court of the ACJM No.-2,
Bikaner. Since the offences were exclusively triable by the Court
of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the
Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1,
Bikaner. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner,
for trial in accordance with law.
6. Learned trial court, upon taking cognizance, framed charges
against the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under
Section 302/34 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of
the charges were read over and explained to the accused-
appellants, who denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12
witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced
documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-26.
8. The statements of the accused-appellants were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (5 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
allegations in toto, claimed themselves to be innocent and
asserted that they had been falsely implicated in the present case.
It was stated that the prosecution witnesses were close relatives
of the deceased and, therefore, interested witnesses. The
accused-appellant, Kesra Ram, specifically pleaded that he was
present in his native village, Satasar, at the relevant time and had
no involvement whatsoever in the alleged commission of offence.
In defence, the accused-appellant examined Harkha Ram as DW-1
in support of their case.
9. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced
on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences under Section
302/34 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated
12.04.2002.
10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, the accused-
appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-
appellant no.1 Kesra Ram vehemently assailed the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.04.2002 and
submitted that the same is wholly illegal, improper, perverse and
contrary to the evidence available on record, having been passed
without proper appreciation of the material evidence and
surrounding circumstances of the case. He further submitted that
the learned trial court has failed to consider the facts in their
correct perspective and, therefore, the impugned judgment and
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (6 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
order deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused-
appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges leveled against
him.
12. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the First
Information Report and the statements of the prosecution
witnesses would reveal that the prosecution story is inherently
improbable and unnatural. He further submitted that the material
witnesses have made contradictory and inconsistent statements
on vital aspects of the prosecution case and, therefore, no
conviction under Section 302 IPC could have been recorded on the
basis of such unreliable and contradictory evidence.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that, even according to
the prosecution case, accused-appellants Kesra Ram and Mukha
Ram were armed only with lathis and had allegedly caused simple
injuries on the hands and legs of the deceased. He, therefore,
submitted that there was no material to infer any common
intention on their part to commit the murder of the deceased. He
further submitted that accused-appellant Kesra Ram had only one
functional hand, his right hand having been amputated long prior
to the alleged occurrence, and, therefore, the allegation that he
participated in the assault in the manner alleged by the
prosecution is wholly improbable. On this ground alone, He
submitted that Kesra Ram is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
14. Learned counsel submitted that PW-3 Bhagirath, the
independent witness cited by the prosecution, did not support the
prosecution version. He further submitted that the testimony of
PW-7 Bhanwari, daughter of the deceased, was rightly disbelieved
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (7 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
by the learned trial court, as she herself stated that she was
sleeping at the time of the occurrence. He also submitted that PW-
6 Jeevan Ram, being the real brother of the deceased, was not
residing at the place of occurrence and was subsequently
introduced as a planted witness. According to learned counsel, had
he actually been present at the spot, he would have naturally
intervened to save his sister from the assault. His failure to do so
is wholly inconsistent with normal human conduct and renders his
testimony unreliable. He further submitted that PW-4 Mukhi, being
the mother-in-law of the deceased, is a highly interested witness
whose testimony suffers from material improvements and
contradictions and, therefore, no conviction could have been
founded on her evidence.
15. Learned counsel also submitted that the alleged incident had
its genesis in a land dispute between accused-appellant Chima
Ram and the husband of the deceased. Accused-appellant Kesra
Ram had no concern whatsoever with the said dispute. He
submitted that, even if the prosecution case is accepted in its
entirety, the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without
any premeditation. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by
the deceased, it cannot be inferred that the accused-appellant-
Kesra Ram had the intention to cause her death. At the highest,
the prosecution case would attract the provisions of Section 304
Part II IPC and not under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Thus, the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC is legally
unsustainable.
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (8 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
16. Learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the
FSL report and submitted that the alleged weapon of offence
recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Chima Ram was
not scientifically connected with the crime. According to learned
counsel, this circumstance creates a serious dent in the
prosecution case and renders the recovery evidence wholly
unreliable.
17. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the co-accused,
Bhajan Lal, has already been acquitted by the learned trial court
on the very same set of evidence. He submitted that once the
prosecution witnesses have been found unreliable qua one of the
accused persons, the same evidence could not have been
selectively relied upon for recording the conviction of the present
accused-appellant. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned
judgment and order dated 12.04.2002 may be quashed and set
aside and the accused-appellant may be acquitted of all the
charges.
18. E-Converso, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-
appellant and has supported the findings recorded by the learned
trial court. He submits that the impugned judgment dated
12.04.2002 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and that
the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offences under
Sections 302/34 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code has be rightly
recorded on the basis of reliable and cogent evidence available on
record.
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (9 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
19. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully re-appreciated the entire oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record including the impugned order dated
12.04.2002.
20. As regards PW-7 Bhanwari, we find that although her
presence at the place of occurrence is natural, the evidence on
record reveals that she had awakened only after the assault had
commenced. Consequently, she cannot be treated as an eye-
witness to the actual occurrence. Nevertheless, her testimony
assumes significance to the extent that it establishes the presence
of PW-4 Mukhi and PW-6 Jeevan Ram at the place of occurrence
immediately before and during the incident. To that extent, her
deposition lends assurance to the prosecution case.
21. The ocular testimony of PW-4 Mukhi and PW-6 Jeevan
Ram inspires complete confidence. PW-4 Mukhi, being the
mother-in-law of the deceased, was admittedly residing with her
and her presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted.
Similarly, PW-6 Jeevan Ram has consistently stated that he had
come to visit his sister after knowing that she had been assaulted
a few days earlier owing to the ongoing boundary dispute.
Significantly, the post-mortem report records the existence of an
earlier injury on the deceased, thereby lending corroboration to
the version of PW-6 Jeevan Ram regarding his visit to the
deceased house. The prompt lodging of the First Information
Report by PW-6 within a few hours of the occurrence further
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (10 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
fortifies his presence at the scene and rules out any possibility of
false implication after due deliberation.
22. PW-3 Bhagirath, though declared hostile, has nevertheless
admitted that at about 6:00 a.m. he heard cries emanating from
the field of Ramchandra and that PW-6 Jeevan Ram came to him
informing that Chima Ram and Kesra Ram were assaulting his
sister. To this extent, his testimony substantially corroborates the
prosecution version and cannot be ignored merely because he was
declared hostile.
23. PW-4 Mukhi has categorically deposed that accused-
appellant Chima Ram came armed with an axe whereas accused-
appellant Kesra Ram and the third assailant were armed with
lathis. She has consistently stated that Chima Ram inflicted axe
blows on the head of the deceased while Kesra Ram and the co-
accused repeatedly assaulted her with lathis on her hands and
legs. She has further deposed that when she attempted to
intervene, Kesra Ram caught hold of her hand and dragged her
aside, thereby preventing her from rescuing the deceased. Her
testimony finds complete corroboration from the deposition of PW-
6 Jeevan Ram, who has narrated the incident in material
particulars in the same manner.
24. The contention raised on behalf of the accused-appellant that
Kesra Ram, having one amputated hand, could not have
effectively participated in the assault also does not merit
acceptance. Merely because one hand of the accused-appellant
had been amputated long before the incident, it cannot be inferred
that he was incapable of wielding a lathi with his another hand. No
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (11 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
evidence has been produced by the defence to probabilise such a
plea. On the contrary, both PW-4 Mukhi and PW-6 Jeevan Ram
have consistently identified Kesra Ram as one of the assailants.
His physical condition, rather than creating doubt, constitutes a
distinctive identifying feature, making the possibility of mistaken
identity highly improbable.
25. The plea of alibi raised by accused-appellant Kesra Ram that
he was present in Village Satasar at the relevant time also
deserves outright rejection. Except for making such a statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no evidence whatsoever has been
adduced in support thereof. No suggestion regarding his alleged
absence was put to the material prosecution witnesses during
cross-examination. Consequently, the said plea remains wholly
unsubstantiated.
26. It has further come on record that there existed a boundary
dispute between accused Chima Ram and the husband of the
deceased. The prosecution witnesses have consistently spoken
about the previous assault upon the deceased a few days before
the incident. The evidence further reveals that on the date of
occurrence, the husband of the deceased was away from the
house and the accused persons took advantage of his absence to
execute the assault. These circumstances furnish a clear motive
for the commission of the crime.
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Baban Shankar
Daphal and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in
2025 INSC 97, while dealing with the issue of testimonies of
relative witnesses has held as under:-
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (12 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
“28. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses,
particularly those who are close relatives of the victim,
is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not
automatically render a witness “interested” or biased.
The term “interested” refers to witnesses who have a
personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for
revenge or to falsely implicate the Accused due to
enmity or personal gain. A “related” witness, on the
other hand, is someone who may be naturally present
at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should
not be dismissed simply because of their relationship
to the victim. Courts must assess the reliability,
consistency, and coherence of their statements rather
than labelling them as untrustworthy.
29. The distinction between “interested” and “related”
witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State
of Punjab,: 1953:INSC:46: 1954 SCR 145 where this
Court emphasized that a close relative is usually the
last person to falsely implicate an innocent person.
Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related
witness, the court should focus on the consistency and
credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures
that the evidence is not discarded merely due to
familial ties, but is instead assessed based on its
inherent reliability and consistency with other evidence
in the case. This position has been reiterated by this
Court in:-
i. Md. Rojali Ali and Ors v. The State of Assam
Ministry of Home Affairs through
secretary;2019:INSC:223
ii. Ganapathi v. State of T.N.;2018:INSC:271
iii. Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry
2009:INSC:1223
30. Though the eyewitnesses who have been examined
in the present case were closely related to the
deceased, namely his wife, daughter and son, their
testimonies are consistent with respect to the Accused
persons being the assailants who inflicted wounds on
the deceased. As is revealed from the sequence of
events that transpired, one of the family members was
subjected to an assault. It was thus quite natural for
the other family members to rush on the spot to
intervene. The presence of the family members on the
spot and thus being eyewitness has been well
established. In such circumstances, merely because
the eyewitnesses are family members, their
testimonies cannot be discarded solely on that
ground”.
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (13 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
28. In the present case, the prosecution has examined PW-3
Bhagirath, PW-4 Mukhi, PW-6 Jeevan Ram and PW-7 Bhanwari as
eye-witnesses to the occurrence. It is true that PW-4 Mukhi is the
mother-in-law of the deceased, PW-6 Jeevan Ram is the real
brother of the deceased and PW-7 Bhanwari is the daughter of the
deceased, however, merely because these witnesses are closely
related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be rejected at the
threshold. Their presence at the place of occurrence is most
natural and stands firmly established from the evidence available
on record. The occurrence took place at the Dhani of the deceased
where PW-4 Mukhi was admittedly residing with her, PW-6 Jeevan
Ram had come to visit his sister after knowing about the earlier
assault upon her and PW-7 Bhanwari, being the daughter of the
deceased, was naturally present in the house. In these
circumstances, their presence at the scene of occurrence is wholly
natural and probable. Consequently, their testimony cannot be
discarded merely on account of their relationship with the
deceased. Rather, after subjecting their evidence to careful
scrutiny, we find the same to be consistent, reliable and duly
corroborated by the medical as well as other attendant evidence
on record. We, therefore, find no reason to disbelieve their
testimony merely on the ground that they are related to the
deceased.
29. PW-8 Dr. Kuldeep Singh, who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased Meera on
08.10.1999, deposed that he prepared the post-mortem report
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (14 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
(Ex.P-16). Upon examination, he found the following ante-mortem
injuries on the body of the deceased:-
(i) An incised wound measuring 4 cm × 1 cm over
the frontal region of the forehead towards the
left temporal side;
(ii) An incised wound measuring 5 cm × 1 cm on the
frontal portion of the forehead near the coronal
suture;
(iii) An incised wound measuring 3 cm × 1 cm over
the right temporal region;
(iv) An old stitched scar measuring about 3 cm over
the middle of the forehead;
(v) A lacerated wound measuring 2 cm × 1 cm on the
dorsum of the right hand;
(vi) Fracture of the left humerus approximately 15
cm below the left shoulder joint;
(vii) Fracture of the left radius and ulna approximately
17 cm below the left elbow joint;
(viii) Compound fracture of the left tibia and fibula
below the tibial tuberosity accompanied by a
crushed lacerated wound measuring 3 cm × 1
cm; and
(ix) Fracture of the right tibia and fibula
approximately 10 cm below the knee joint.
30. The witness categorically deposed that injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3
and 5 were simple in nature, whereas injuries Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9
were grievous. He further opined that the blunt force injuries
could have been caused by the same blunt weapon. Although no
individual injury, by itself, was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature, the cumulative effect of all the injuries
resulted in shock and excessive haemorrhage, which was sufficient
to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of
nature. During cross-examination, the witness stated that he
could not say whether the deceased would have survived had
timely medical treatment been provided. However, he remained
firm in his opinion that the deceased died due to shock and
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (15 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
excessive bleeding caused by the cumulative effect of the injuries
sustained by her.
31. The medical evidence completely corroborates the ocular
version. As per the post-mortem report (Ex.P-16), the deceased
sustained multiple injuries, including three incised wounds on the
forehead caused by a sharp-edged weapon and several grievous
injuries resulting in fractures on different parts of the body caused
by blunt weapons. PW-8 Dr. Kuldeep Singh has categorically
opined that the deceased died due to shock and excessive
haemorrhage resulting from the cumulative effect of all the
injuries, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. Merely because each injury individually may not have
been sufficient to cause death does not diminish the effect of the
cumulative injuries inflicted upon the deceased.
32. The recovery evidence also lends assurance to the
prosecution case. Pursuant to the information furnished by
accused-appellant Chima Ram, an axe was recovered, whereas a
blood-stained lathi was recovered at the instance of accused-
appellant Kesra Ram. Though no blood was detected on the
recovered axe, the same by itself is of no consequence since the
recovery was effected several days after the occurrence and the
possibility of the weapon having been cleaned cannot be ruled out.
Significantly, the Forensic Science Laboratory report establishes
that the blood found on the lathi recovered from accused-
appellant Kesra Ram was of the same group as that of the
deceased. The chain of custody of the seized articles has been
duly proved by the prosecution witnesses and no material infirmity
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (16 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
has been brought on record so as to discredit the recovery
proceedings.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that the accused-appellants, Chima Ram and Kesra Ram, in
furtherance of their common intention, committed criminal
trespass into the dwelling house (Dhani) of the deceased and
intentionally caused her death by inflicting fatal injuries. The
findings recorded by the learned trial court are based upon proper
appreciation of the oral, medical and documentary evidence and
do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or infirmity warranting
interference by this Court.
34. Consequently, the present criminal appeal preferred by the
accused-appellant No.1 Kesra Ram, being devoid of merit,
deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 12.04.2002 passed by the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner,
in Sessions Case No.36/2001 is affirmed.
35. The appellant no.1 Kesra Ram shall undergo the remaining
part of the sentence, if any, in accordance with law.
36. On the question of quantum of sentence, we have also heard
learned counsel for accused-appellant no.1 Kesra Ram and have
carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the entire material available on record. We are of the
considered view that the learned trial court has rightly passed the
sentence against the accused-appellant no.1 Kesra Ram and
therefore no interference in the same is warranted.
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36207-DB] (17 of 17) [CRLA-429/2002]
37. The accused-appellant No.1 Kesra Ram is presently in
custody. He shall continue to undergo the sentence awarded to
him by the learned trial court.
38. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith along
with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary
compliance.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
Kartik Dave/cpgoyal/-
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 02:53:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 08:46:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
