Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Gurucharan @ Babloo S/O Yadram vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 377/2022
Gurucharan @ Babloo S/o Yadram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village Nymadpur Police Station Halena, District Bharatpur
Rajasthan (At Present Under Judicial Custody Central Jail
Bharatpur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R B Sharma Ganthola
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP with
Mr. Vinod Sharma
Ms. Neha Goyal
Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki with
Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj
Mr. Rituraj Soni
Ms. Barsha Kumari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
1. Arguments Concluded on: 03.02.2026
2. Judgment Reserved on: 03.02.2026
3. Full Judgment/Operative Part Full Judgment
Pronounced:
4. Pronounced on: 19.02.2026
(Per: HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.)
1. By way of the instant criminal appeal, the accused-appellant
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant’) has approached this
Court assailing the validity of the judgment and order of sentence
dated 05.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Wair, District Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned
Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.44/2021 (CIS No.45/2021).
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (2 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:
i) Under Section 460 IPC: Simple Imprisonment for ten
years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default whereof, to undergo
three months of simple imprisonment.
ii) Under Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.20,000/-; in default whereof, to undergo six months of simple
imprisonment.
iii) Under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms
Act: Simple imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.3,000/-;
in default whereof, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment.
All sentences were directed to run concurrently. The fine
amount to the tune of Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid as
compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE LIS AT HAND:
3. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case unfolds from a
written report dated 14.11.2015 (Ex.P-8) filed by Ramkishan (PW-
9) at Police Station Halena, District Bharatpur, which was later
registered as FIR No. 289/15 (Ex.P-9). It was alleged that on the
intervening night of 13.11.2015, at around 11:30 PM, while the
informant was lying in bed and listening to music at his residence,
he heard the sound of a gunshot. Upon rushing to the courtyard,
the informant witnessed the appellant-Gurucharan@Babloo, firing
a gunshot at his brother, Jagdish (deceased), which hit him hard
on the stomach and hip region. The informant further stated that
he chased the appellant, who then fled away on a running
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (3 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
motorcycle driven by another person, later identified as Abdul s/o
Rehman.
4. It was further alleged in the FIR that the motive attributed to
the commission of the said act was a prior animosity inter se the
parties and that the appellant had ingressed into the house of the
informant and threatened the entire family to withdraw the case
registered against the appellant regarding the abduction of a girl
belonging to the community of the informant and the deceased.
5. The deceased was initially taken to a hospital in Bharatpur
and thereafter referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he
succumbed to his injuries. The FIR also discloses that on
14.11.2015, the appellant had issued threats to kill all the
brothers of the deceased via mobile phone; the specific mobile
numbers of the incoming threat calls to Satveer@Sattu (PW-10)
have categorically been specified in the FIR.
6. Upon registration of the said FIR, the investigation
commenced and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of
close relatives of the deceased, such as PW-9 (Ramkishan), PW-7
(Mohan Singh), PW-2 (Hariom), PW-3 (Bheem Singh), PW-6
(Rahul Kumar), PW-8 (Hemant), PW-5 (Kamal Singh @ Kalua),
PW-10 (Satveer @ Sattu), were recorded. The site plan was
formulated (Ex.P-7), panchnama was drawn (Ex.P-3), and the
Medical Board conducted the post-mortem of the body of the
deceased (Ex.P-6). The shirt of the deceased (Ex.P-5), the
cartridge which caused the injury/death (Ex.P-10), and blood
samples of the deceased were duly seized by the investigating
authorities.
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (4 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
7. During the course of investigation, the appellant was
arrested on 06.12.2015. Pursuant to the recovery of a key
attached to the pendant of the appellant and as per the
information furnished under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
(Ex.P-22), a country-made pistol and four live cartridges came to
be discovered/recovered on 08.12.2015 from the residence of the
appellant (Ex.P-12). A separate site plan of the place of recovery
was formulated (Ex.P-13). The seized articles were sent to the
FSL, and a ballistic report (Ex.P-34) was obtained qua the
recovered weapons.
8. The co-accused, namely Abdul, remained absconding and
investigation; under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C, was kept
pending against him. A detailed charge-sheet was filed qua the
appellant. Thereafter, charges were framed and the appellant had
disputed the same and claimed trial. After a full-fledged trial, the
appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
9. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the findings of the learned Trial Court are
based on conjectures and surmises. It is contended that the
conviction of the accused rests on legally inadmissible evidence. It
is submitted that there has been an unexplained delay of
approximately 18 hours in lodging the FIR, which casts a shadow
of doubt on the prosecution story. It is averred that the entire
case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimony of interested
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (5 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
witnesses i.e., the relatives of the deceased, and the testimony of
independent witnesses was not paid much consideration by the
learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the theory put
forth by the eyewitnesses, when nobody witnessed the incident
firsthand, is not tenable. It is next submitted that the instant case
rests purely on circumstantial evidence and the said chain of
circumstances leading to the irresistible conclusion of the guilt is
ill-founded. It is further contended that there have been glaring
inconsistencies and stark contradictions amongst the contents
recorded in the FIR, the statements recorded during the trial, and
the statements recorded during the cross-examinations. It is also
submitted that the prosecution story regarding threats on
14.11.2015 is not tenable as there was neither any recovery of
the mobile phone used for the alleged threats, nor were any Call
Detail Records (CDR) produced to substantiate the same. It is
next averred that the material evidence in the instant case, i.e.,
the country-made pistol and four live cartridges recovered from
the appellant, cannot be relied upon as the independent witnesses
to the seizure memo turned hostile and the said recovery has
been given the color of a tainted and planted recovery. In light of
the said argument, learned counsel has relied upon the dictum
encapsulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raja Khan v.
State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 70/2025),
submitting that once a witness to the seizure of material evidence
turns hostile, the same cannot be relied upon. It is further
contended that the appellant was detained in the custody at
Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, for the period starting from 10.11.2015
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (6 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
to 17.11.2015 and therefore, the presence of the appellant at the
place of incident in the intervening night of 12.11.2015 and
13.11.2015 is not possible under any circumstance, and the entire
story of the prosecution seems to be planted. It is argued that at
the time of alleged incident, the family members of the deceased,
who are alleged to be eyewitnesses in the instant case, were in
different portions of the house and could not have witnessed the
commission of the alleged offence. It is next submitted that it is
improbable that despite the presence of more than half a dozen
relatives of the deceased, the appellant entered the house of the
informant armed with a loaded gun at late hours of 13.11.2015
and managed to escape on a running motorcycle with the co-
accused after committing the murder of the deceased. It is also
submitted that despite the presence of so many relatives, no
attempt was made to restrain the appellant, nor did any
resistance or altercation took place at the place of incident. It is
further contended that neither the co-accused, namely Abdul, has
been arrested, nor the said motorcycle has been recovered till
date. It is next submitted that nothing has been produced on
record qua the story and motive that the appellant has abducted a
girl belonging to caste of the deceased, and therefore, there was
no existence of any motive to commit the said act. Further,
learned counsel has placed reliance upon Exhibits D-2/A and D-3,
which categorically reflect that a compromise was executed inter
se the appellant and the informant/deceased’s family.
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (7 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant submit that the prosecution has been able to
prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It
is submitted that in the instant case, there was a clear motive
behind the commission of the said offence by the appellant and
the same has been corroborated by the evidence available on
record. It is next submitted that there has been recovery of a
country-made pistol and four live cartridges, and the scientific
evidence, such as the FSL report (Ex.P-33) and the ballistic report
(Ex.P-34), evidently corroborates the ocular testimony. It is
contended that the cause of death as cited in the post-mortem
report (Ex.P-6) supported the fact that the injury has been caused
by the recovered weapon. It is averred that there has been a
large number of criminal antecedents registered against the
appellant, and that the material available on record reveals that
the plea of alibi as taken by the appellant is nothing but a sham,
myth, and fraud. It is next contended that a case of abduction of a
girl was ongoing against the appellant and the appellant had been
continuously threatening the family of the deceased to not give
testimony in the said case. It is also alleged in the FIR that on
12.11.2015, the appellant had trespassed into the house of the
deceased and issued serious threats to the entire family. Lastly, it
is submitted that the statements recorded by the prosecution
witnesses have established the fact that all the witnesses have
spoken in one voice, and minor inconsistencies and contradictions
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (8 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]do not dilute/vitiate either the veracity of their testimony or the
case of the prosecution.
Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the dictum laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun &
Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 8 SCC 359 and
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. v. State of Gujarat,
(2011) 11 SCC 111, and the ratio laid down by the Bombay High
Court in the case of Dattu Rohidas More v. The State of
Maharashtra, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Appeal No.
455/2021, refuting the claim of the appellant.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
11. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, gone through the case laws cited at the Bar, scanned the
material available on record, and perused the impugned judgment
and the paper-book.
12. After hearing the matter at length and considering the
material available on record, we arrive at the following findings:
12.1 The instant case unfolds from FIR no. 289/15, registered on
14.11.2015 by the brother of the deceased (PW-9), and the said
FIR discloses that on 13.11.2015 at around 11:30 PM, the
appellant, being equipped and armed with a loaded gun, entered
the informant’s house. It further discloses that the murder of the
informant’s brother, namely Jagdish (deceased), was committed
by inflicting a fatal gunshot injury with an ill and ulterior motive of
threatening and intimidating the witnesses, who were close
relatives of the deceased and acting/deposing against the
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (9 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
appellant in a matter regarding the abduction of a girl belonging to
the community of the deceased. Moreover, the said FIR discloses
that immediately after firing the gunshot, the appellant managed
to escape from the place of incident on a running motorcycle
driven by another person.
12.2 The said fact has been buttressed by the judgment dated
16.07.2021 (Ex.D-1/A), produced by the learned counsel for the
accused himself, which bears testimony to the existence of the
said dispute/case registered under the POCSO Act, and therefore,
the ulterior motive of the appellant behind commission of the said
act cannot be denied and the same has duly been established.
12.3 The cross examinations and statements recorded by PW-9
(Ramkishan), PW-4 (Harveer Singh), PW-7 (Mohan Singh), PW-8
(Hemant), PW-6 (Rahul Kumar), and PW-5 (Kamal Singh @ Kalua)
have, in one voice, reflected that on 14.11.2015 at around 11:30
pm, the appellant arrived at the house of the deceased on a
motorcycle along with the co-accused Abdul, who is absconding till
date, and fired a gunshot. The site plan reflects that the witnesses
were present in the same house and that their presence in their
residence at such late hours is natural. The argument adopted by
learned counsel for the appellant that the witnesses lived in
different portions of the house does not discredit their ability to
witness the incident.
12.4 The ocular testimony of the witnesses is wholly and duly
supported by the scientific evidence. The post-mortem report qua
the deceased (Ex.P-6) expressly confirms the cause of death. The
bullet recovered from body of the deceased was sent for FSL
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (10 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
analysis. The FSL report (Ex.P-33) and the ballistic report (Ex.P-
34) confirm that the bullet recovered from the body of the
deceased had been fired from the country-made pistol which has
been discovered from the residence of the appellant in
consequence of the information received by the Investigating
Officer from the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
(Ex.P-22). The testimony of the Investigating Officer, namely
Premprakash (PW-19), and the medical expert, namely Dr.
Mahendra Singh (PW-16), further corroborates the said fact and
the testimony of the other witnesses.
12.5 As far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant
regarding the fact that all the witnesses to the seizure memo have
turned hostile is concerned, it is settled law that if the testimony
of the Investigating Officer (PW-19) is trustworthy and
corroborated by other evidence such as the FSL report and the
ballistic report, the hostility of panch witnesses is of no
consequence and the recovery cannot be discarded merely on the
said ground. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Nidhi Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 (4) RLW 3190
(Raj.) has categorically held that:
“85. In the case of Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan:
(1978) 4 SCC 435) and in the case of Surendra Singh
v. State of Haryana: (2006) 9 SCC 247), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has opined that “in case the recovery
witnesses were to admit their signatures on the
recovery memo, but were to turn hostile, then the court
should believe the contents of the recovery memo and
deposition of the investigating officer.” Therefore, the
learned counsel for the appellant are unjustified in(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (11 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]claiming that merely because the recovery witnesses
have turned hostile, the recovery should be disbelieved.
In the present case, the recovery witnesses have
admitted their signatures on the recovery memo.
Although some of them have turned hostile, but under
the principles prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court this
court has to believe the contents of the recovery memo
and the deposition of the investigating officer.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the dictum of Surender Singh v.
State of Haryana, (2006) 9 SCC 247 has further held that:
“6. So far the minor discrepancy, which has been
pointed to us, we are of the view that it is not of such a
nature, which creates infirmity in the prosecution’s
case. It is a well-established principle of law that every
discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated
as a fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy,
which does not affect the prosecution case materially,
does not create infirmity.
7. With regard to PWs 3 and 4 panch witnesses being
turned hostile, this contention was also well considered
by the Trial Court and the High Court. And both the
courts held that their statements do not affect
materially the prosecution story. PW-3 stated that
pistol or cartridges or currency notes mentioned in
Ex.PC were not recovered in his presence. He, however,
admitted his signatures over Ex.PC and Ex.PD. PW-4
also stated that the pistol, cartridges or currency notes
mentioned in Ex.PC were not recovered in his presence.
He also admitted that Ex.PC and Ex.PD bear his
signatures. Therefore, both the courts correctly held
that the Ex.PC and Ex.PD were recovered in the
presence of PWs 3 and 4 who were panch witnesses.”
(emphasis supplied)
Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun & Ors.
v. State of Karnataka (supra) on the same lines has also held
that:
“23. As pointed out earlier, based on the disclosure
statement of Accused No. 1, MO-1-dagger which was
kept hidden in the haystack of fodder in the loft of the(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (12 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]cattle shed behind the house of Accused No. 1 had
been seized under Ex.-P9-Panchnama in the presence
of panch witnesses PW-8-Chandrappa and PW-9-
Mahadevappa Needgera. The said panch witnesses
have not supported the prosecution case and turned
hostile. MO-2-dagger and MO-3-handle of the axe were
recovered from the scene of occurrence under Ex.-P7-
spot panchnama. On behalf of the Accused, learned
Senior Counsel contended that the evidence of PW-17-
PSI as to the recovery of MO-1-dagger at the behest of
Accused No. 1 is doubtful and when PWs 8 and 9 have
turned hostile, no weight could be attached to the
alleged recovery of MO-1-dagger. There is no merit in
the contention that merely because the panch
witnesses turned hostile, the recovery of the weapon
would stand vitiated. It is fairly well settled that the
evidence of the Investigating Officer can be relied upon
to prove the recovery even when the panch witnesses
turned hostile. In Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State
of Gujarat and Ors.: (2011) 11 SCC 111, it was held as
under:
33. In Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: (1978) 4
SCC 435 it was observed (at SCC p. 438, para 9) that
where the evidence of the investigating officer who
recovered the material objects is convincing, the
evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the
ground that seizure witnesses did not support the
prosecution version. Similar view was expressed in
Mohd. Aslam v. State of Maharashtra: (2001) 9 SCC
362.
34. In Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan : (2004) 10
SCC 657, it was further held that: (SCC p. 661, para
10)
10. … even if panch witnesses turn hostile, which
happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of
the person who effected the recovery would not stand
vitiated.
35. This Court has held in a large number of cases
that merely because the panch witnesses have turned
hostile is no ground to reject the evidence if the same
is based on the testimony of the investigating officer
alone. In the instant case, it is not the case of defence
that the testimony of the investigating officer suffers
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (13 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
from any infirmity or doubt. (Vide Modan Singh case,
Krishna Gopal case and Anter Singh case.)….”
(emphasis supplied)
Moreover, we have perused the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Safi Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan: (2013) 8 SCC
601, wherein it has been held that:
“20. After referring to the evidence of the PW-22 and
PW-24 the search of the house of the Appellant and
seizure of certain documents along with diary
particularly Ex D-3, handwritten map prepared with
certain markings, it has proved the prosecution case.
No doubt the independent witnesses have turned
hostile, but the learned sessions judge has rightly
accepted the testimony of the police witnesses after
proper appreciation of their evidence and he has rightly
placed reliance upon the police witnesses to prove the
seizure of the documents from the house of the
Appellant and therefore the same cannot be held to be
bad in law as contended by the learned Counsel for the
Appellant.”
(emphasis supplied)
Lastly, in the ratio enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Chetan v. The State of Karnataka, (2025) 9 SCC
31:-
“11.1 For the reasons discussed above, on consideration
of the circumstantial evidences and other proven facts,
in our considered opinion, a clear pattern emerges out
of the circumstances so proved with inferential and
logical links which unmistakably points to the guilt of
the Appellant for committing murder of the deceased
Vikram Shinde, punishable Under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and also for committing offences
Under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 and 5 of the Arms Act,1959 punishable
Under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (14 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]These proved circumstances considered individually or
taken together do not indicate the involvement of
anyone else other than the Appellant.
In the circumstances so proved, the possibility of any
other person being responsible for the death being ruled
out, it can be safely said that the Prosecution has been
able to prove the charges against the Appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. There can thus be no doubt that no
one else other than the Appellant could have committed
the crime.
11.2. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that
no material illegality has been committed by the Trial
Court and the High Court in appreciating the evidence
against the Appellant nor it can be said that any gross
injustice has been caused to the Appellant by the
impugned judgment by misreading or ignoring any
material evidence.”
(emphasis supplied)
12.6 As far as the plea of alibi taken by the appellant is
concerned, we are of view that the submissions put forth qua the
fact that the appellant was in custody in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh,
for the period starting from 10.11.2015 to 17.11.2015 are found
to be a subterfuge. The said fact has further been corroborated by
Exhibit P-32 which reflects that a case of forgery/fraud was
registered at Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, against the appellant qua
the making of false and fabricated custody documents.
Furthermore, the appellant has miserably failed to adduce any
cogent evidence during the trial to substantiate the said claim.
Rather, an adverse inference is drawn against the appellant for
raising a false plea of alibi based on forged and fabricated
documents.
12.7 Qua the submission put-forth by the learned counsel for the
appellant vis-a-vis the improbability of the commission of the
offence, as despite presence of approximately half a dozen close
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (15 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
relatives/witnesses, who were located in close surroundings of the
house, at the time of incident, and that it is highly improbable for
the appellant to escape the place, we upon a perusal of the
material available on record i.e. the site plan (Ex.P-7) and the
testimony given by the close relatives of the deceased such as
PW-9 (Ramkishan), PW-7 (Mohan Singh), PW-2 (Hariom), PW-3
(Bheem Singh), PW-6 (Rahul Kumar), PW-8 (Hemant), PW-5
(Kamal Singh @ Kalua), PW-10 (Satveer @ Sattu), are opined to
jot down the following findings:
i) Being equipped with a loaded gun, the appellant trespassed
into the house of the deceased during the late hours of
13.11.2015.
ii) The appellant, well prepared and with an ulterior motive, as
stated above, inflicted a gunshot injury at the stomach and hip
region of the deceased.
iii) The house in which the said incidence occurred was
segmented, and the witnesses were present in different portions
of the said house.
iv) Immediately, after firing the gunshot, the appellant while
pointing the gun towards the witnesses managed to escape from
the place of incident with the co-accused Abdul, on a running
motorcycle.
Therefore, as in presence of ulterior motive and culpable
state of mind of the appellant and taking note of the fact that the
appellant was equipped with a loaded firearm and the witnesses
were scattered across different portions of the house, as
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (16 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
corroborated by the site plan (Ex.P-7), we are of the view that the
appellant manage to escape from the place of incidence.
12.8 We are of view that the reliance placed upon Exhibits D-2/A
and D-3 (compromise deeds executed inter se the parties) is
misconceived. Firstly, the commission of an offence under Section
302 IPC is heinous and non-compoundable in nature. Secondly, no
emphasis on the said compromise deeds was laid by the appellant
during the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
Therefore, we are of view that the said compromise executed
between the parties is not valid in the eyes of law.
13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
instant case, submissions put forth by learned counsel for the
parties, looking upon the material available on record, coupled
with the consistent ocular testimony of the witnesses, and taking
note of the recovery of the weapon from the residence of the
appellant, the positive FSL report, and the failure of the appellant
to substantiate the plea of alibi, we are of view that the
prosecution has been able to establish the case qua the appellant
beyond any reasonable doubt.
14. In light of the above, we are of the considered view that the
findings and reasoning given by the learned Trial Court in the
impugned judgment, relying upon the dicta encapsulated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munshi Prasad & Ors v.
State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 351 and Appabhai & Anr. v.
State of Gujarat, 1988 (Supp) SCC 241, are sound and the
same suffer from no infirmity.
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6103-DB] (17 of 17) [CRLAD-377/2022]
15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed. The
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
05.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Wair, District Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.44/2021 is upheld.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Pooja /111
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 04:21:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 09:01:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
