Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Peera Ram vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:13031-Db) on 18 March, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 660/2016
Peera Ram S/o Sh Ragga Ji, resident of Badruna, Jhab Police
Station, District Jalore
----Appellant
Versus
State of the Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Smt. Sumitra Singaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sharvan Singh Rathore,PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
18/03/2026
1. The present D B Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant Peera Ram S/o Shri Ragga Ji, under Section 374 Cr.P.C.
assailing the validity of judgment dated 12.07.2016 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore, (hereinafter
referred to as “the learned trial court”) in Sessions Case No.
41/2012, whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused-
appellant for the offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code arising out of FIR No.103/2012.
2. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court has sentenced
the accused-appellant to undergo imprisonment for life along with
a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3. Brief facts for deciding the present appeal are that the on
14.09.2012 at about 8:00 A.M. the complainant-Chatraram (PW-
06) lodged a written report (Ex. P-11) at Police Station Jhab,
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (2 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
stating therein that on 13.09.2012 his nephew Mangaram after
taking his meal had gone to sleep in the thatched shed situated in
his agricultural field. It is alleged that during the night while
Mangaram was sleeping in a said shed, he was inflicted with
injuries by a sharp-edged weapon, as a result whereof, he died on
the spot. The complainant-Chatraram further stated that he
received information of the incident from Harjiram Kalbi and, upon
reaching at the place of occurrence, he found the dead body of his
nephew Mangaram lying there soaked in blood.
4. On the basis of the said information, a formal FIR No.
103/2012 (Exhibit P.21) was registered at Police Station, Jhab,
Jalore against the accused-appellant for the offence under
Sections 302 IPC.
5. After completion of investigation, Police filed a charge-sheet
against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302,
IPC before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore from where
the case was committed to the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore.
6. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the
charges under Section 302 IPC to the accused-appellant, who
denied the same and sought for trial.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16
witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence from Exp. P-1 to
P-27.
8. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances put
to him, stating that the prosecution witnesses had deposed falsely
against him on account of enmity and alleged that his neighbours
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (3 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
intents to encroach upon his land. He further alleged that the
police has not conducted a fair and proper investigation and that
he was innocent. He further stated that Smt. Kailash had been
married with Mangaram and no recovery was effected from
Mangaram. In defence the accused-appellant examined Mangaram
as DW-1 and did not lead any documentary evidence.
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-appellant as aforesaid vide judgment dated
12.07.2016.
10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.07.2016, the
accused-appellant has preferred the present appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the
prosecution case suffers from fundamental infirmities, which strike
at the very root of its credibility. He further assails the impugned
judgment dated 12.07.2016 passed by the learned trial court and
contends that the same is contrary to the facts and circumstances
of the case as well as the settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the
prosecution case rests merely on suspicion arising out of alleged
bloodstains found on the clothes of the appellant. He submits that
there is no “last seen” evidence available on record to show that
the appellant was seen committing the alleged offence. Though
the prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses, none of
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (4 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
them have stated that they had seen the accused-appellant
inflicting injuries upon the deceased Mangaram. In absence of any
direct evidence connecting the appellant with the crime, the
learned trial court has committed an error in recording the
conviction.
13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits
that PW-3 Chopa Ram, who is the father-in-law of the deceased,
has clearly stated that he did not see the appellant committing the
alleged occurrence and has also deposed that the appellant was
mentally disturbed. He submits that the evidence on record
indicates that due to his mental condition, the accused-appellant
had earlier been taken by Amba Ram and other family members
to Jodhpur for treatment. In this regard, reliance is also placed
upon the statement of PW-2 Prabhu Ram, who has signed certain
documents prepared by the police. Learned counsel thus submits
that despite such material available on record indicating that the
accused-appellant was mentally disturbed, the learned trial court
has ignored the said aspect and has wrongly placed reliance upon
the testimony of PW-14 Harjiram.
14. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits
that PW-14 Harjiram in his statement nowhere stated that the
accused-appellant allegedly killed the deceased during the night.
He submits that this witness has not seen the accused-appellant
causing any injury to the deceased and the alleged extra-judicial
confession made before PW-14 cannot be made the sole basis for
conviction, particularly when the prosecution evidence itself
suggests that the accused-appellant was mentally disturbed.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (5 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits
that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated on the
basis of alleged recovery of bloodstained clothes and a
bloodstained axe (kulhari). He submits that such recovery is not
reliable inasmuch as the articles were allegedly recovered from
the place of occurrence and not from the possession of the
accused-appellant. In support of his contentions, he made
reference to the statements of PW-4 Rana Ram and PW-6
Chatraram (the complainant). He further submits that the
investigating agency failed to take fingerprints or footprints from
the place of occurrence or from the alleged weapon so as to
connect the accused-appellant with the commission of crime, and
therefore the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
16. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits
that several prosecution witnesses have stated that the appellant
was mentally disturbed and despite such material on record, no
proper investigation was conducted with regard to his mental
condition. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to
establish any clear motive of the accused-appellant to commit the
alleged offence. He additionally places reliance upon the testimony
of PW-12 Dr. Vibha Ram Choudhary, who has stated that the
accused-appellant is physically weak and, therefore, would not be
capable of causing the injuries, which resulted into the death of
the deceased-Mangaram.
17. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that out
of the sixteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, several
material witnesses including PW-7 Smt. Hallu, PW-9 Bhikha Ram
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (6 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
and PW-11 Smt. Kailash have not supported the prosecution case
and have been declared hostile. He further submits that even
some of the other witnesses have not supported the prosecution
version in material particulars and thus serious doubt is created
regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. Therefore, he
submits that the learned trial court has failed to properly
appreciate these aspects and has erroneously based the conviction
primarily on the basis of statements of police officials.
18. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the
learned trial court has committed grave error in convicting and
sentencing the accused-appellant. It is, therefore, prayed that the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.07.2016
passed by the learned trial court be set aside and the appellant be
acquitted of the charges.
19. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and has
supported the prosecution case set out before the trial court and
he submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the
learned trial court convicting the accused-appellant under Section
302 IPC vide judgment dated 12.07.2016.
20. We have considered the submissions made before this Court
and have carefully gone through the entire material available on
record, including the impugned judgment dated 12.07.2016.
21. We note that the present case admittedly rests upon the
circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness to the
occurrence. In such cases, it becomes necessary to examine
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (7 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
whether the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution
is complete or not and whether the same unerringly points out
guilt towards the accused-appellant. It is well settled that in a
case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, must be fully
established and must form a chain so complete as to leave no
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused. The proved circumstances must be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and must exclude
every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, as
authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
AIR 1984 SC 1622.
22. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that the prosecution, in
order to substantiate its case, examined as many as sixteen
witnesses. Amongst them, the material witnesses include
Chatararam (PW-6), the complainant and brother of the accused;
Choparam (PW-3), the father-in-law of the deceased; Ranaram
(PW-4), an independent witness; Harjiram (PW-14), a
neighbouring witness; and Dr. Vibharam Chaudhary (PW-12), who
proved the medical evidence. The investigation was conducted by
Hariram (PW-16), the Investigating Officer. It is true that some of
the family members of the accused and the deceased, namely
Smt. Haludevi (PW-7), Bhikharam (PW-9) and Smt. Kailash (PW-
11), did not fully support the prosecution case and were declared
hostile; however, it is well settled that the testimony of a hostile
witness is not to be discarded in toto and that portion of the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (8 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
evidence, which is found to be reliable can certainly be taken into
consideration.
23. The testimony of the complainant Chatararam (PW-6), who is
the brother of the accused, assumes relevance in the present
case. He stated that upon returning home in the morning he found
the deceased Mangaram lying dead near the thatched shed in the
field and noticed that the accused Peeraram was present there
with bloodstains on his clothes, which was later seized by police
vide seizure memo Ex.P-09. Although this witness admitted that
he had not personally seen the occurrence, his testimony
regarding the condition in which the accused was found
immediately after the incident has remained unshaken during
cross-examination. Being the real brother of the accused, it
appears highly improbable that the witness would falsely implicate
the accused in such a grave offence, particularly when nothing has
been brought on record to indicate any motive for false
implication.
24. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of
Choparam (PW-3), the father-in-law of the deceased, who stated
that when he reached the place of occurrence he found the dead
body of Mangaram lying there with injuries and the accused
Peeraram sitting nearby. According to PW-3, when he questioned
the accused, the latter disclosed that he had asked Mangaram for
money and upon refusal, he had killed him with an axe during the
night. The presence of injuries on the body of the deceased was
subsequently confirmed by the post-mortem report Ex.P-17
proved by PW-12. At this stage, it is also necessary to observe
that merely because some of the witnesses are related to the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (9 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
accused or the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded on
that ground alone. It is well settled that relationship by itself is not
a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. What is required is
careful scrutiny of such evidence.
25. Dr. Vibharam Chaudhary (PW-12), who conducted the post-
mortem examination on the body of the deceased Mangaram, has
proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-17) and categorically
deposed that the deceased had sustained multiple incised injuries
on vital parts of the body. As per the post-mortem report, the
following injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased:
(i) A sharp-edged wound measuring 10 cm × 1 cm present on the
right side of the head, containing brain tissue and blood clots.
(ii) A sharp-edged wound measuring 3 cm × 5 cm present on the
head extending towards the right ear.
(iii) An incised wound extending from one ear to the other across
the posterior aspect of the head.
(iv) An incised wound on the right side of the neck measuring
about 10 cm in depth up to the bone, whereby all the vessels of
the neck on the right side were found to be cut.
The doctor (PW-12) further opined that all the injuries were
ante-mortem in nature and were caused by a sharp-edged
weapon and that the injuries on the head and neck were sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The cause of
death as mentioned in Post-mortem report Ex.P-17 was opined to
be excessive hemorrhage and shock resulting from the said
injuries. The time of death was assessed to be approximately 6 to
18 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. Nothing material
could be elicited in the cross-examination of this witness so as to
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (10 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
discredit his testimony. Thus, the medical evidence conclusively
establishes that the death of Mangaram was homicidal in nature.
26. Similar evidence has been given by the neighbouring witness
Harjiram (PW-14). He categorically deposed that upon hearing
sounds of weeping from the field/dhani of the accused, he went
there and saw the dead body of Mangaram lying on a cot with
blood on the ground and the accused sitting at a short distance
away wearing bloodstained clothes which were later seized vide
seizure memo Ex.P-9. When he asked the accused about the
incident, the accused stated that Mangaram (son of the accused)
intended to assert the ownership over the house had refused to
give him money for purchasing doda and other items and
therefore he had killed him with an axe during the night. The
testimony of this witness has remained intact during cross-
examination and nothing has been brought on record to suggest
that he had any animosity against the accused.
27. The evidence relating to the extra-judicial confession made by
the accused before the above witnesses appears to be natural and
trustworthy. Both these witnesses (PW-3 and PW-14) were
persons known to the accused and were not shown to be inimical
to him in any manner. The defence has not been able to
demonstrate any reason as to why these witnesses would falsely
attribute such a confession to the accused. The learned trial court
while dealing with this aspect of the matter, has rightly placed
reliance upon the settled principle governing extra-judicial
confession as laid down in in the judgement of Bhagwan Dass Vs.
State (NCT) of Delhi reported in AIR 2011 SC 1863, wherein it has
been observed that:
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (11 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]“In our opinion the statement of the accused to his
mother Smt. Dhillo Devi is an extra judicial confession. In
a very recent case this Court in Kulvinder Singh and Anr.
v. State of Haryana Criminal Appeal No. 916 of 2005
decided on 11.4.2011 referred to the earlier decision of
this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram
MANU/SC/0595/2003 : (2003) 8 SCC 180, where it was
held (vide para 10):
“An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and
true and made in a fit state of mind, can be
relied upon by the court. The confession will
have to be proved like any other fact. The
value of the evidence as to confession, like
any other evidence, depends upon the
veracity of the witness to whom it has been
made. The value of the evidence as to the
confession depends on the reliability of the
witness who gives the evidence. It is not open
to any court to start with a presumption that
extra-judicial confession is a weak type of
evidence. It would depend on the nature of
the circumstances, the time when the
confession was made and the credibility of the
witnesses who speak to such a confession.
Such a confession can be relied upon and
conviction can be founded thereon if the
evidence about the confession comes from the
mouth of witnesses who appear to be
unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the
accused, and in respect of whom nothing is
brought out which may tend to indicate that
he may have a motive of attributing an
untruthful statement to the accused, the
words spoken to by the witness are clear,
unambiguous and unmistakably convey that
the accused is the perpetrator of the crime
and nothing is omitted by the witness which
may militate against it. After subjecting the
evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on
the touch-stone of credibility, the extra-
judicial confession can be accepted and can be
the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of
credibility.””
The learned trial court, after referring to the aforesaid legal
position, has found the extra-judicial confession made by the
accused before PW-3 Choparam and PW-14 Harjiram to be
voluntary and reliable. It is well settled that an extra-judicial
confession, if found to be voluntary, truthful and made in a fit
state of mind, can form the basis of conviction. In the present
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (12 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
case, the extra-judicial confession made by the accused stands
duly corroborated by other circumstances appearing on record.
28. Apart from the above evidence, the prosecution has also
established the recovery of the weapon of offence and the
bloodstained clothes at the instance of the accused. The
Investigating Officer Hariram (PW-16) has categorically deposed
that pursuant to the information furnished by the accused under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the axe used in the
commission of the offence was recovered from the room of the
accused and seized vide memo Ex.P-8. Similarly, the vest and
dhoti worn by the accused at the time of the incident were also
produced by him and seized vide memo Ex.P-9. The prosecution
has been able to establish that these articles were duly sealed at
the time of seizure and were subsequently sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory through forwarding letter Ex.P-26. The FSL
report (Ex.P-27) confirms the presence of human blood of group
‘B’ on the axe as well as on the clothes of the accused. The
accused has failed to offer any explanation whatsoever as to how
the blood of the deceased came to be present on these articles.
29. Another important circumstance emerging from the evidence
is that the accused and the deceased were residing in the same
house and the deceased was sleeping in the shed situated in the
field adjacent to the house. The evidence on record, more
particularly the evidence of PW-6 Chatararam and PW-14 Harjiram
clearly suggest that apart from the family members, no other
person was present at the place of the occurrence. In such
circumstances, when the death of the deceased has been proved
to be homicidal, and the accused was found present at the place
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (13 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
of occurrence wearing bloodstained clothes, the burden shifted
upon the accused to offer a plausible explanation regarding the
occurrence. The accused was expected to furnish a plausible
explanation as to how the deceased sustained fatal injuries.
However, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
accused has failed to offer any explanation whatsoever regarding
the circumstances in which the deceased sustained the fatal
injuries. In such cases, the principle embodied in Section 106 of
the Indian Evidence Act becomes applicable, inasmuch as the facts
relating to the occurrence were especially within the knowledge of
the accused. His failure to offer any explanation regarding these
incriminating circumstances provides an additional link in the
chain of circumstances.
30. It is well settled that the failure of the accused to offer an
explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot by
itself form the sole basis of conviction; nevertheless, when the
prosecution has succeeded in establishing incriminating
circumstances against the accused, his failure to offer any
plausible explanation regarding such circumstances provides an
additional link in the chain of circumstances.
31. It is also significant to note that the occurrence took place in
the field/dhani of the accused where the deceased was sleeping
during the night. The evidence on record clearly establishes that
the accused was present at the place of occurrence immediately
after the incident and was found wearing bloodstained clothes. No
evidence has been brought on record to indicate the presence of
any outsider at the place of occurrence. In such circumstances,
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (14 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
the possibility of any third person committing the offence appears
to be wholly remote.
32. Another important circumstance which lends assurance to the
prosecution case is the existence of motive. From the evidence
available on record, it stands established that the accused was
addicted to consumption of doda-post and liquor and frequently
demanding money from his son Mangaram for satisfying his
addiction. The witnesses Choparam (PW-3), Ranaram (PW-4),
Chatararam (PW-6) and Hariram (PW-16) have all stated that the
accused used to consume doda-post and often quarreled with the
deceased over money. The Investigating Officer Hariram (PW-16)
has also deposed that during the course of investigation it
transpired that the deceased Mangaram used to object to the
conduct of the accused in squandering money on intoxicants and
this often led to disputes between them. Thus, the prosecution
has been able to establish that there existed a motive for the
accused to commit the crime. It is trite law that motive assumes
significance particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence;
however, even otherwise, absence of strong motive would not by
itself be fatal if the chain of circumstances is otherwise complete.
33. The conduct of the accused immediately after the occurrence
is also a circumstance which cannot be ignored. The evidence of
Harjiram (PW-14) and Chatararam (PW-6) clearly indicates that
when the witnesses reached the place of occurrence, the accused
was present there with bloodstains on his clothes. Significantly,
despite the fact that the deceased was his own son, the accused
neither informed the police nor made any effort to report the
incident to the authorities. The normal human conduct in such
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (15 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
circumstances would have been to immediately report the
occurrence. The failure of the accused to do so and his presence
at the place of occurrence with bloodstained clothes constitute a
strong incriminating circumstance against him.
34. Learned counsel of the accused- appellant sought to suggest
that the accused had been falsely implicated due to enmity and
that the neighbours intended to encroach upon his land. However,
this plea appears to be wholly unfounded. The defence has not
been able to place any material on record to substantiate the
alleged dispute regarding land. Even during the cross-examination
of the prosecution witnesses including PW-14 Harjiram and PW-6
Chatararam, no suggestion was put to them establishing the
existence of any such dispute. The independent witness Harjiram
(PW-14), who is a neighbour of the accused, was not confronted
with any suggestion regarding land encroachment. In these
circumstances, the explanation offered by the accused appears to
be a mere bald assertion without any factual foundation.
35. Learned counsel for the appellant laid emphasis on the plea
that the accused was mentally disturbed. However, the evidence
on record does not substantiate such a plea. None of the
witnesses have stated that the accused was suffering from any
such mental illness which rendered him incapable of
understanding the nature of his acts. No medical record or
prescription was produced by the defence to establish that the
accused was undergoing treatment for insanity. Even the defence
witness Maganaram (DW-1) did not depose that the accused was
insane at the time of the incident. In absence of any cogent
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (16 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
evidence, the plea of unsoundness of mind taken by the defence
cannot be accepted.
36. The testimony of Harjiram (PW-14) and Choparam PW-3
regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the accused has
been carefully examined by this Court. It is true that an extra-
judicial confession, by itself, is generally regarded as a weak piece
of evidence; however, when such confession is found to be
voluntary and is duly corroborated by other reliable circumstances
on record, it can safely be relied upon. In the present case, the
extra-judicial confession attributed to the accused by PW-14
Harjiram and PW-3 Choparam stands substantially corroborated by
the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. kulhari at the instance
of the accused vide recovery memo (Ex.P-8), the seizure of
bloodstained clothes of the accused vide seizure memo (Ex.P-9),
the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P-27), the
evidence of PW-6 Chhatara Ram and the medical evidence proved
by Dr. Vibharam Chaudhary (PW-12) through the post-mortem
report (Ex.P-17), which clearly establishes that the deceased
Mangaram died due to injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon.
Moreover, the accused has failed to offer any plausible explanation
in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him.
37. On a careful and cumulative evaluation of the entire evidence
available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has
successfully established all the incriminating circumstances
forming a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the
accused. The homicidal death of the deceased stands conclusively
proved by the medical evidence of Dr. Vibharam Chaudhary (PW-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (17 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
12) and the post-mortem report (Ex.P-17); the presence of the
accused-appellant at the place of occurrence with bloodstained
clothes has been duly proved by the testimony of Harjiram (PW-
14) and Chatararam (PW-6); the extra-judicial confession made
by the accused before PW-3 Choparam and PW-14 Harjiram
stands corroborated by independent circumstances including the
recovery of the weapon of offence (kulhari) vide memo Ex.P-8, the
seizure of bloodstained clothes of the accused vide memo Ex.P-9,
and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P-27)
confirming the presence of human blood on the recovered articles.
The existence of motive arising out of frequent disputes regarding
money for intoxicants as deposed by PW-3 Choparam, PW-4
Ranaram and PW-6 Chatararam further lends assurance to the
prosecution case. Significantly, the accused has failed to offer any
plausible explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. regarding these incriminating circumstances which were
especially within his knowledge. The cumulative effect of these
circumstances is such that they form a complete and unbroken
chain which is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and is
wholly inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
38. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned
trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has
correctly concluded that the prosecution has proved the charge
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
39. The findings recorded by the learned trial court do not suffer
from any perversity, illegality or mis-appreciation of evidence
warranting interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13031-DB] (18 of 18) [CRLA-660/2016]
40. Consequently, the present criminal appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 12.07.2016 passed by the learned trial court, whereby the
accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced accordingly,
are affirmed and upheld.
41. The accused-appellant is presently in custody. He shall
continue to undergo the sentence awarded to him by the learned
trial court.
42. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith along with
a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
4-Vaibhav/cpgoyal/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 12:27:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:38:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
