Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Amrit @ Darab @ Pappu Son Of Pitram vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:15771-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 43/2021
Amrit @ Darab @ Pappu son of Pitram, Resident of Village Bada
Wazidpur, Police Station Nadoti, District Karauli (Rajasthan)
presently confined in Special Central Jail, Shyalawas Dausa
----Accused-Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Singhal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Punia, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 13.04.2026
Date on which judgment is reserved : 13.04.2026
Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment
Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2026
Per Hon’ble Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J.
By way of this criminal appeal, the accused-appellant (for
short, ‘the appellant’) has assailed the legality and validity of the
judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, No. 2, Hindaun City, District-Karauli (for short,
‘the learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 51/2016 (03/2014)
whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Under Section 302 IPC:- Life imprisonment with fine of
₹10,000/-; in default whereof, one year’s additional simple
imprisonment.
In nutshell, the facts are that Vishnu Khatana (PW1)
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:30:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:11:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15771-DB] (2 of 11) [CRLAD-43/2021]submitted a written report dated 04.11.2013 at about 01.45 pm
with Police Station Nadoti, District Karauli stating therein that in
the night of 01.11.2013, after having dinner, his cousin Dhara
Singh @ Dara Singh slept at about 10.00 pm in a room and in the
nearby room, his younger brother Amrit @ Darab @ Pappu was
sleeping. It was averred that in the morning of 02.11.2013, Dhara
Singh was found dead with ligature mark, from a rope, on his
neck. It was alleged that the appellant used to threaten to
eliminate Dhara Singh and has murdered him by strangulation.
Based thereupon, an FIR No. 294 dated 04.11.2013 was
registered under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, the
appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 302 IPC whereunder,
charge was also framed against him. After trial, he has been
convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove.
Assailing the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that findings of the learned trial Court are based on
conjectures and surmises and it has erred in convicting him in
absence of any legally admissible evidence. Inviting attention of
this Court towards the testimony of Rampati (PW3) and Pitram
(PW4)-mother and father of the deceased respectively, he
contended that they have admitted their absence from the place
of incident in the night and could not have been reckoned as the
witnesses of ‘last seen’. Learned counsel submitted that the
prosecution has also failed to establish the motive behind
commission of the offence which has great relevance in the cases
based on circumstantial evidence. He argued that the prosecution
could not establish the complete chain of circumstances leading to
only conclusion of his guilt. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:30:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:11:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15771-DB] (3 of 11) [CRLAD-43/2021]be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 30.09.2016 be quashed
and set aside and he be acquitted of the charge framed against
him.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the
submissions, cotended that the learned trial Court has held the
appellant guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC after
appreciation of cogent evidence on record. He submitted that the
deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant, they
slept under the same roof and in the morning, the deceased was
found dead; but, the appellant failed to furnish any satisfactory
explanation for it. He canvassed that all the witnesses have stated
in unison that the appellant had a grudge against the deceased on
account of his engagement prior to him. He also contended that
there was recovery of the rope used by the appellant in
commission of the offence based on his disclosure statement. He,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Heard. Considered.
As per the opinion of the Medical Board which conducted the
autopsy as reflected in the postmortem report (Ex. P11) which
was proved by Dr. Dharam Singh Meena (PW14) and Dr. Ratnesh
Meena (PW15)-the Members of the Medical Board, cause of death
of Dhara Singh @ Dara Singh (deceased) was found to be
asphyxia due to strangulation which was sufficient to cause death.
It was also found that deceased had transverse ligature mark
around the neck completely encircling it below the thyroid
cartilage with 1 cm. width. Thyroid cartilage was found to be
fractured with healthy and non-fractured hyoid bone. Ecchymosed
was also found around the mark of the ligature. During their
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:30:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:11:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15771-DB] (4 of 11) [CRLAD-43/2021]
cross-examination, both the doctors have specifically denied that
it was a case of suicide. In view thereof, it was a proven case of
homicidal death.
Indisputably, the case is based on circumstantial evidence.
Now the moot question before this Court is as to whether the
prosecution has been able to establish the complete chain of
circumstances leading to only possibility of guilt of the appellant.
Their Lordships have, in the much celebrated case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra; (1984)
4 SCC 116, held as under:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show
that the following conditions must be fulfilled
before a case against an accused can be said to be
fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated
that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’
and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may
be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
& Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following
observations were made: [SCC para19, p.807: SCC
(Cri) p.1047]
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the mental distance
between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
that is to say, they should not be explainable on
any other hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:30:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:11:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15771-DB] (5 of 11) [CRLAD-43/2021]
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.”
154. These five golden principles constitute the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence and in absence of a corpus
deliciti.
If the prosecution evidence is examined on the touchstone of
the aforesaid golden principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), we
arrive at following conclusion.
The deceased was elder brother of the appellant. From the
testimony of Vishnu Khatana (PW1)-cousin of the deceased,
Siyaram (PW2)-uncle of the deceased, Rampati (PW3)-mother of
the deceased and Pitram (PW4)-father of the deceased, it was
established that the deceased as also the appellant slept in the
fateful night of 01.11.2013 in the same house though, in different
rooms and their mother was sleeping in a ‘pator’ (a makeshift
construction) in the vicinity and the father was sleeping outside in
the verandah and in the morning of 02.11.2013, while, the
deceased was found dead, the appellant was found missing.
As already observed, the death was unnatural and homicidal.
Since, only the appellant and the deceased were sleeping in the
fateful night under the same roof and the deceased was found
dead in the morning and the appellant missing, Section 106 of the
Evidence Act rests upon the appellant the burden to offer a
credible explanation as to the circumstances whereunder, the
deceased-his elder brother, met with the unnatural death by
strangulation. But, the defence, except a suggestion to the
prosecution witnesses that it was a case of suicide, suggested
nothing else to them to discharge the burden. At the cost of
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:30:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:11:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15771-DB] (6 of 11) [CRLAD-43/2021]
repetition, we may observe here that both the Members of the
Medical Board, i.e., PW14 and PW15, have categorically denied the
suggestion made to them during their cross-examination that it
was a case of suicidal death. We also notice that except making a
bald assertion that he was innocent, the appellant also failed to
offer any explanation in his plea recorded under Section 313 CrPC.
Their Lordships have, in the case of Manohar Keshavrao
Khandate Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2025 INSC 953 involving
identical controversy, while rejecting the appeal preferred by the
appellant against his conviction, held as under:-
“10. Suffice it to say, that the child witness had no
reason whatsoever to give false evidence implicating
her own father for the murder of her mother. The
bald plea of denial advanced by the accused-
appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC,
is clearly an after-thought and insufficient to
discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106
of the Evidence Act, 1872.
14. The High Court, upon re-appreciating the
evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at the
conclusion that the evidence of the child witness was
reliable and trustworthy and that the defence of
denial taken by the accused-appellant was flimsy
and unacceptable. On the contrary, in terms of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden rested
upon the accused-appellant to offer a credible
explanation as to under what circumstances the
deceased Smt. Ranjana, sustained the fatal injuries,
particularly when the incident took place within the
four walls of the house where the accused-appellant
resided with the deceased Smt. Ranjana.”
Further, on the disclosure statement made by the appellant,
a nylon rope, used by the appellant in the commission of offence,
was recovered from an iron box placed inside an almirah from the
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:30:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:11:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15771-DB] (7 of 11) [CRLAD-43/2021]
residential house of the parties. Lock of the box was opened by
the appellant from the key found in his possession at the time of
his arrest. The recovery has been proved by the panch witnesses
and we find no reason to doubt the same. Thus, the prosecution
was able to establish that the strangulation, cause of death, was
committed by the appellant with the nylon rope recovered at his
instance.
Moreover, almost all the prosecution witnesses comprising of
parents of the parties, their family members and villagers, such as
Vishnu Khatana (PW1), Siyaram (PW2), Rampati (PW3), Pitram
(PW4), Rajanti @ Chinta (PW5), Rekh Singh (PW6) S/o Nanguram,
Omprakash (PW7), Devi Singh (PW8), Rekh Singh (PW9) S/o
Ramsi and Naresh (PW10) have stated in unison that the appellant
had a grudge against the deceased on account of his engagement
and scheduled marriage prior to his marriage and he used to
threaten of eliminating the deceased if married prior to him. Their
testimony could not be impeached during their cross-examination
and their version as to motive behind commission of the offence
remained unshattered.
There is one more important aspect of the matter pertaining
to conduct of the appellant. Section 8 of the Evidence Act provides
as under:-
8. Motive, preparation and previous or
subsequent conduct.–Any fact is relevant which
shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any
fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to
any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to
such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact
in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:30:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:11:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15771-DB] (8 of 11) [CRLAD-43/2021]
of any person an offence against whom is the
subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such
conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in
issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous
or subsequent thereto.
Explanation 1.–The word “conduct” in this
section does not include statements, unless those
statements accompany and explain acts other than
statements; but this explanation is not to affect the
relevancy of statements under any other section of
this Act.
Explanation 2.–When the conduct of any
person is relevant, any statement made to him or in
his presence and hearing, which affects such
conduct, is relevant.
As per the aforesaid provision, conduct of an accused is
relevant fact if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact
or issue or relevant fact whether, it was previous or subsequent
thereto.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has, in the case of Dayal Kurmi Vs.
State of Assam; Criminal Appeal No. 1348/2024, held as
under:-
“10. By all available evidence, it is clear that the
appellant was in the house on the same day. His
case is that he was not in the house but he was in
Shani Temple at Tinsukia. There is not evidence of
alibi produced in his support. But be that as it may,
there is absolutely no explanation as to why the
appellant would not reach his house when he was
informed that his wife has been burnt to death and
go to the house or at least be present at cremation
ground for the last rites of his wife. His unexplained
absence is an important factor for the court to
consider under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The
evidence of the doctor PW8 is also important who
clearly states that this was a homicidal death,
considering the nature of burn injuries, when there
are no burn injuries on the palm.”
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:30:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:11:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15771-DB] (9 of 11) [CRLAD-43/2021]
In the case of Arabindra Mukherjee Vs. State of West
Bengal; 2011(14) SCC 352, their Lordships have held as
under:-
“5. Once the appellant was last seen with the
deceased, the onus is upon him to show that either
he was not involved in the occurrence at all or that
he had left the deceased at her home or at any
other reasonable place. To rebut the evidence of
last seen and its consequences in law, the onus
was upon the accused to lead evidence in order to
prove his innocence. It was also for the accused to
establish that he was falsely implicated. The stand
taken by the accused in his statement under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was
a complete denial of involvement and a result of
false charges by the appellants. Once the
prosecution had established its case, it was
expected from the appellant to prove his defence of
false implication. The conduct of the accused-
appellant also is suspicious in the sense that after
the occurrence he was absconding and with
difficulty the police could trace and arrest him.”
Thus, in the aforesaid cases, it was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that unexplained absence of the accused at the
scene of crime despite information that his/her near or dear was
murdered as also unexplained absence from the cremation ground
are important factors for the Court to consider under Section 8 of
the Evidence Act.
In the instant case also, it was established from the evidence
available on record that while, the appellant was sleeping along
with the deceased under the same roof in the fateful night, he was
found missing from the house in the morning when his elder
brother was found murdered. He was also not present at the
cremation rather, came to be arrested on 05.11.2013, i.e., on the
fourth day of the commission of the offence. It was also reflected
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:30:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:11:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15771-DB] (10 of 11) [CRLAD-43/2021]
from the prosecution evidence that he used to reside with his
parents in the same residential house; but, the appellant has
offered no explanation, in his statement recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C., for his absence soon after the commission of the
offence for such a long period which could safely be considered as
an adverse circumstance against him in the chain of circumstances
to prove his guilt.
We find yet another salient aspect of the case. Smt. Rampati
(PW3) and Pitram (PW4) have lost their elder son on account of
his murder and unless there were strong compelling reasons to
prove otherwise, they would not have falsely deposed against
their only remaining son-the appellant. We find from the evidence
on record that there was no dispute between the brothers with
regard to any land/property except that the appellant had a
grudge against the deceased on account of his engagement and
scheduled marriage before his. None of the parents was
suggested, during their cross-examination, any reason for false
implication of their only remaining son-the appellant. In these
circumstances also, we find their testimony to be trustworthy and
reliable. In the case of Shamim Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi);
MANU/SC/1016/2018, a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, has held as under:-
9. In a criminal trial, normally the evidence of
the wife, husband, son or daughter of the
deceased, is given great weightage on the principle
that there is no reason for them not to speak the
truth and shield the real culprit. We see no reason
why the same principle cannot be applied when
such a witness deposes against a closely related
Accused. According to normal human behavior and
conduct, a witness would tend to shield and protect(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:30:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:11:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15771-DB] (11 of 11) [CRLAD-43/2021]a closely related Accused. It would require great
courage of conviction and moral strength for a
daughter to depose against her own mother who is
an Accused. There is no reason why the same
reverse weightage shall not be given to the
credibility of such a witness.
In the conspectus of aforesaid analysis, we are of the
considered view that the prosecution has been able to establish
the complete chain of circumstances leading to the only irresistible
conclusion of guilt of the appellant in commission of murder of his
elder brother.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Tahir/59
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:30:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:11:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
