Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Jagdish on 25 February, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 189/2025
State Of Rajasthan, Trhough PP
----Appellant
Versus
1. Jagdish S/o Lakhma Baranda, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Nichli Sigri Phalla Sitradari, Ps Phalasiya, Dist. Udaipur.
2. Govindram S/o Jagdish Baranda, R/o Nichli Sigri Phalla
Sitradari, Ps Phalasiya, Dist. Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohin Bhansali
Mohd. Aman
Ms. Anushka Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)
1. Date of conclusion of argument 17.02.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was 17.02.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
operative part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2026
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
Appellant-State under Section 378(iii) & (i) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the validity of judgment dated
18.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2,
Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 54/2017, arising out of FIR No.
40/2017 registered at Police Station Phalasiya, District Udaipur,
whereby the accused-respondents, namely, – Jagdish and
Govindram have been acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per prosecution case, on 08.04.2017 at about 8:00 a.m.,
the complainant Smt. Priyanka @ Sita Baranda submitted a
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (2 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
written information (Ex.P-1) before the Station House Officer,
Police Station Phalasiya, stating therein that she and her brother
Subhash had gone to their respective schools in the morning, she
to Sitradari School and her brother to Sigri School to appear in an
examination. She stated that upon hearing shouting and noise
from the direction of her house, she rushed back and saw that the
accused-respondents, namely, Jagdish and Govindram were
assaulting her Bhuwa Kamla, her grandfather Lakhma, and her
grandmother Dhanki with lathis, and thereafter fled from the spot.
She further stated that her brother Subhash also reached there
and, upon seeing the injured persons lying at the spot, went to
inform their Bhuwa Elasi, resident of Sada. When Elasi arrived, it
was found that Lakhma and Kamla had succumbed to their
injuries, while Dhanki was lying in a seriously injured condition.
3. On the basis of the said information, a formal FIR No.
40/2017 was registered at Police Station Phalasiya for the offences
under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-
sheet against the accused-respondents for the offence under
Section 302/34 IPC before the Court of Additional Judicial
Magistrate, Jhadol, District Udaipur, from where the case was
committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2,
Udaipur for trial.
5. The learned Trial Court framed, read over, and explained the
charges under Section 302/34 IPC to the accused-respondents,
who denied the same and claimed trial.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (3 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
6. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 23
witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence from Ex.P-1 to
Ex.P-61.
7. The statements of the accused-respondents were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution
allegations, claimed false implication, and asserted their
innocence. The accused-respondents did not lead any evidence in
defence.
8. Learned Trial Court, Upon hearing the arguments advanced
on behalf of both sides and after appreciation of the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the accused-
respondents of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC vide
judgment dated 18.11.2022.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 18.11.2022, the Appellant-State has
preferred the present Appeal.
10. Hence the present appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant – state submitted that the
learned trial court has committed grave illegality and perversity in
acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges levelled
against them. The impugned judgment is contrary to law,
unsupported by evidence, and deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant – state further submitted
that the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below is
contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence as well
as the facts and evidence available on record. The learned Trial
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (4 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence in its correct perspective and has ignored material
circumstances and corroborative pieces of evidence, which clearly
establish the complicity of the accused-respondents. The learned
court below, thus, committed a grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondents.
13. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, the
prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt and has brought home the guilt of the accused-respondents
for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
IPC.
14. Learned counsel also submitted that though the complainant
PW-1 Priyanka was declared hostile, yet in her cross-examination
she categorically stated that she had seen the accused-
respondents assaulting the deceased and the injured persons with
lathis. Her testimony, to the extent it supports the prosecution
case, could not have been brushed aside merely on the ground
that she was declared hostile. He further submitted that there
existed a land dispute between the parties and due to prior
enmity; the accused-respondents committed the murder of Kamla
and Lakhma.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant-state also invited attention
to the medical evidence on record and submitted that PW-15 and
PW-17, in their sworn testimonies, clearly stated that Kamla and
Lakhma died due to excessive bleeding, multiple rib fractures and
massive haemorrhage. The injuries sustained by the deceased
were grievous in nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (5 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
nature to cause death, which fully corroborates the ocular version
of the prosecution witnesses.
16. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the
appellant-State prayed that the impugned judgment of acquittal
be set aside and the accused-respondents be convicted in
accordance with law.
17. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has opposed
the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant- state and
has supported the judgment passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, and he submitted that there is no
infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court while
acquitting the accused-respondents of the offence under Section
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment
dated 18.11.2022.
18. We have considered the submissions made before this Court
and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case,
including the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2022.
19. Upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, it
emerges that the present case is founded primarily on direct
evidence and not on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has
projected PW-1 Priyanka @ Sita and PW-5 Prabhulal as the
principal eyewitnesses of the occurrence. So far as PW-1 Priyanka
@ Sita is concerned, in her examination-in-chief she deposed that
on the date of the incident she had gone to school at about 8:00
a.m. and that her house was not visible from the school premises.
She categorically stated that she did not witness the assault on
her grandmother, aunt and grandfather and that she had no
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (6 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
knowledge of the occurrence. In view of her resiling from the
earlier version, she was declared hostile.
20. It is noteworthy that the First Information Report (Ex.P-1)
was lodged by PW-1 Priyanka @ Sita, wherein it was alleged that
at about 11:00-12:00 noon she had seen from the school window
that accused-respondents, namely, Jagdish and Govindram, were
assaulting Kamala, Lakhma and Dhanki with Lathi and, thereafter,
fled from the spot. However, in her Statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Court, she did not support the
contents of the FIR. During cross-examination, she admitted that
Jagdish and Govindram had assaulted her relatives and caused
injuries, but in cross-examination she stated that she did not
know, who had written Ex.P-1 and further stated that Jagdish and
Govindram did not assault anyone. Though she admitted her
signatures on her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
but she denied having dictated substantial portions of her police
statement. Thus, the substantive evidence of PW-1 in Court does
not corroborate the version given in the FIR or her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
21. The second alleged eyewitness, PW-5 Prabhulal, a teacher at
the Primary School, Sitradari, also did not support the prosecution
case. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on 08.04.2017 he
was teaching students of 5th standard in school and, on coming
out of the classroom, he saw Lakhma, Dhanki and Kamala lying on
the ground. He did not state that he had seen the accused-
respondents assaulting them. He was also declared hostile. In
cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied material portions
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (7 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
of his police statement (Ex.P-12)r and stated that he had no
knowledge of any fight near the school on that day. Thus, PW-5
also did not provide substantive evidence implicating the accused-
respondents.
22. PW-2 Subhash, though is not an eyewitness, but he stated
that upon returning from examination, his sister told him that
Jagdish and Govindram had killed their grandmother, grandfather
and aunt. However, he later denied that his sister had informed
him so on that date. Priyanka @ Sita PW-1 herself denied having
narrated the incident to PW-2. Thus, his testimony remains
hearsay in nature and does not advance the prosecution case.
23. Similarly, PW-3 Ailasi and PW-4 Shantilal are also hearsay
witnesses. They deposed that Subhash PW-2 informed them that
the accused-respondents had assaulted the deceased. Both
admitted that they were not present at the place of occurrence.
Their testimony, being based on what was allegedly told to them,
cannot be treated as direct evidence of the incident.
24. With regard to recovery, PW-18 Dalpat Singh, the
Investigating Officer, deposed that pursuant to information
furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by accused-
respondents, namely, Jagdish and Govindram (Ex.P-50 and Ex.P-
51), Lathis were recovered from their houses vide recovery
memos Ex.P-22 and Ex.P-23. PW-6 Kalulal and PW-20 Balwant
Singh were recovery witnesses. However, PW-6 Kalulal, though not
declared hostile, stated that he was called to the police station
and made to sign documents and that the lathis were not
recovered in his presence. He denied that the accused-
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (8 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
respondents were arrested or that the site plan was prepared in
his presence. Thus, he did not corroborate the recovery
proceedings.
25. PW-20 Balwant Singh, a police official, supported the
prosecution version regarding arrest and recovery. Though there is
no legal bar in relying upon police witnesses, the recovery in the
present case does not stand corroborated by an independent
witness. In such circumstances, the evidentiary value of the
alleged recovery requires cautious appreciation.
26. As regards the FSL report (Ex.P-59 and Ex.P-60), it reveals
that human blood of group “B” was detected on certain seized
articles including soil samples, clothes of the deceased and the
lathis allegedly recovered from the accused-respondents, however,
neither the blood group of the deceased nor that of the accused-
respondents was determined and brought on record. In absence of
such evidence, the mere presence of blood group “B” on the
recovered articles cannot conclusively connect the accused-
respondents with the commission of crime, particularly when it is
common knowledge that a large number of persons may share the
same blood group.
27. PW-22 Dr. Vardichand Katara, who conducted the post-
mortem examinations of deceased Lakhma (Ex.P-27), found
multiple injuries , including:-
a) An open fracture with a lacerated wound
measuring 2 × 3 × 4 cm below the right knee;
b) A fractured lacerated wound measuring 3 × 3 × 4
cm on the left arm;
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (9 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
c) A lacerated wound 2 × 3 × 2 cm deep up to the
bone on the left knee;
d) A lacerated wound measuring 2 × 3 × 2 cm on
the right wrist;
e) Multiple abrasions on the anterior and posterior
chest; a lacerated wound 2 × 1 × 2 cm on the left
side of the head; and
f) A lacerated wound 2 × 2 × 3 cm on the right side
of the head.
He further found that two ribs were fractured and the lungs
were filled with blood. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
He proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-27) and identified his
signatures thereon. In his opinion, the cause of death was
excessive hemorrhage and respiratory obstruction due to fractured
ribs piercing the lungs
28. On the same day, PW-22 also conducted the post-mortem
examination of deceased Kamala and prepared the report (Ex.P-
28). He found multiple injuries , including:-
a) A 3 × 3 × 5 cm incised wound on the head extending
up to bone depth;
b) Fracture of the left arm with multiple abrasions;
abrasions on the upper right arm with fracture of the
right wrist;
c) A fracture with lacerated wound below the left knee;
d) A 2 × 2 × 4 cm incised wound on the right leg;
abrasions on the left side of the chest; and
e) A 3 × 3 × 5 cm incised wound on the left side of the
head in front of the ear.
Two ribs on the left side of the chest were fractured and the
lungs were found filled with blood due to laceration. The
abdominal organs were normal. He proved the post-mortem
report (Ex.P-28) and his signatures thereon. In his opinion, the
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (10 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
cause of death was excessive bleeding and respiratory failure
resulting from rib fractures piercing the lungs. In cross-
examination, PW-22 stated that such injuries could not be entirely
ruled out in a case where a person falls from a considerable height
or from a mountain. However, there is no evidence on record to
suggest that the deceased sustained the injuries as a result of any
such fall.
29. PW-15 Dr. Iqbal Ali, who was one of the members of the
medical board conducting the post-mortem examinations of
deceased Lakhma and Kamala, has fully corroborated the
testimony of PW-22 Dr. Vardichand Katara. He deposed that the
post-mortem reports of deceased Lakhma and Kamala were
prepared as Ex.P-27 and Ex.P-28 respectively and proved his
signatures thereon. He affirmed the injuries noted in the post-
mortem reports and supported the opinion regarding the cause of
death as recorded therein.
30. PW-17 Dr. Manish Kumar Sharma deposed that on
09.04.2017 he was posted as Assistant Professor at M.B. Hospital
and, on the same day, conducted the post-mortem examination of
deceased Smt. Dhanki Devi as a member of the medical board. He
stated that the deceased had been admitted in the Neurosurgery
Ward of M.B. Hospital on 08.04.2017 and succumbed to her
injuries on the morning of 09.04.2017. The post-mortem was
conducted at about 5:15 p.m. on 09.04.2017. He proved the post-
mortem report (Ex.P-29) and identified his signatures thereon. In
cross-examination, PW-17 stated that head injuries of such nature
cannot be entirely ruled out if a person falls with great force on a
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (11 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
hard and uneven surface. However, there is no evidence on record
to suggest that the deceased had suffered such a fall. The
consistent medical opinion is that the injuries were ante-mortem
and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
31. PW-7 Premchand Varanda, PW-8 Mannalal, PW-9
Rameshchandra, PW-10 Suresh, PW-11 Shambhulal, PW-12
Shantilal, PW-13 Shantilal, PW-14 Veerji and PW-16 Nathulal were
examined as witnesses to the Panchayatnama proceedings of
deceased Lakhma, Kamala and Smt. Dhanki Devi (Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6
and Ex.P-9) and the handing over memos of the dead bodies
(Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-10). Though some of these witnesses
stated that they had signed the documents at the police station
and that the bodies were not handed over in their presence, they
admitted their signatures on the respective documents. The
Investigating Officer also deposed that the Panchayatnamas were
prepared and the dead bodies were handed over to the relatives of
the deceased.
32. From the cumulative reading of the medical evidence and the
Panchayatnama proceedings, it is clearly established that the
deaths of Lakhma, Kamala and Smt. Dhanki Devi were not
natural. The multiple ante-mortem injuries, fractures, internal
hemorrhage and head injuries, as proved by the medical experts,
demonstrate that the deaths were the result of violent assault.
The nature and extent of injuries leave no manner of doubt that
the deaths fall within the ambit of culpable homicide and are
homicidal in nature.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (12 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
33. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the entire oral and
documentary evidence available on record, it emerges that though
the prosecution case is founded on alleged direct evidence, both
the principal eyewitnesses, namely PW-1 Priyanka @ Sita and PW-
5 Prabhulal, have not supported the prosecution version and were
declared hostile. The remaining witnesses are either formal in
nature or hearsay witnesses, whose testimonies do not provide
substantive corroboration to the prosecution case regarding the
actual occurrence.
34. So far as the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence is
concerned, the independent witness PW-6 Kalulal has not
supported the prosecution case and has failed to affirm that the
lathis were recovered from the possession of the accused-
respondents in his presence. The other witness to recovery, being
a police official, has supported the recovery proceedings; however,
in absence of corroboration from an independent witness, the
evidentiary value of such recovery becomes doubtful.
35. The FSL report indicates that human blood of group “B” was
detected on the blood-stained soil seized from the spot, on certain
clothes of the deceased, and on the lathis allegedly recovered
from the accused-respondents. However, the prosecution has not
placed on record any evidence establishing the blood group of the
deceased or that of the accused-respondents. In absence of such
evidence, the mere presence of blood group “B” on the recovered
articles is not sufficient to conclusively connect the accused-
respondents with the crime, particularly when it is a matter of
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (13 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
common knowledge that a large number of persons may share the
same blood group.
36. Undoubtedly, three members of the same family sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the same, and the medical
evidence clearly establishes that their deaths were homicidal in
nature. However, the crucial link connecting the accused-
respondents with the commission of the offence has not been
established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed
to present cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove that
it was the accused-respondents, namely, Jagdish and Govind Ram,
who inflicted the fatal injuries upon the deceased.
37. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that
if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record,
the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. The benefit of
doubt, however slight, must go to the accused.
38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulasareddi and
Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors reported in 2026
INSC 67 in para No.29 has held as under:-
“From the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court,
it can be said that if two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the
Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of
acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Further, if the
view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground
that another view was also possible. The following
principles have to be kept in mind by the Appellate
Court while dealing with the appeals against an order
of acquittal:-
(a) whether the judgment of acquittal suffers
from patent perversity;
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8898-DB] (14 of 14) [CRLAD-189/2025]
(b) whether the judgment is based on
misreading/omission to consider the material
evidence on record;
(c) an order of acquittal is to be interfered
with only when there are “compelling and
substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order
is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling
reason for interference.’
(d) the appellate court, while deciding an
appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating
the evidence, is required to consider whether
the view taken by the trial court is a possible
view which could have been taken on the
basis of the evidence on record;
(e) if the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view was
also possible; and
(f) the appellate court can interfere with the
order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding
that the only conclusion which can be
recorded on the basis of the evidence on
record was that the guilt of the Accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no
other conclusion was possible.
39. In view of aforesaid observation, we find no infirmity or
perversity in the findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.
2, Udaipur below acquitting the accused-respondents of the
charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. Hence, impugned judgment of Acquittal passed by
learned trial court dated 18.11.2022 is upheld.
40. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
41. Office is directed to send the record of the trial court
forthwith.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
-Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal`/-
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:02:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:48:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
