Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Hemant Khandelwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 July, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 432/2025
CNR: RJHC011162492025
URN: CRLAD / 972U / 2025
Hemant Khandelwal S/o Late Shri Girdhari Lal Ji, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Dodua, District Sirohi Raj. At Present Chennai,
Tamilnadu
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Devichand S/o Pukhraj, Aged About 57 Years, R/o
Ranivada Police Station Ranivada District Jalor At Present
R/o A/203, Devkinandan Apartment Brij Bhumi 150 Feet
Road, Bhayandar West District Thana, Maharashtra
3. Kripashankar S/o Rajendra Prasad, R/o Village Kheeree
Post Udupur Police Station, Line Market District Jaunpur
(U.p.) At Present Shreenath Pujari Chal S.p. Road
Dhaarvaadi Dajosar East Mumbai (Maharashtra)
4. Amrit Lal S/o Shri Babu Lal, R/o Ranivada Police Station
Ranivada District Jalor Raj.
5. Parasmal S/o Pukhraj, R/o Ranivada Police Station
Ranivada District Jalor At Present B/406 Nandgaon
Apartment, Co-Operative Society, Near Maxus Mall,
Bhayandar West District Thana Mahashtra
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jay Prakash Bhardwaj
Mr. Hemant Khandelwal, appellant
present in person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, PP
Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Mahipal Singh Deora
Mr. Harshwardhan Singh.
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 14.07.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was 14.07.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
operative part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2026
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
1. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for both the
parties, the present criminal appeal has been heard and finally
decided at the admission stage.
2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-complainant (Hemant Khandelwal) under Section 413 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the
legality and correctness of the judgment dated 15.09.2025 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, District Sirohi,
(hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Sessions
Case No.84/2017, whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted
accused-respondents namely, 1. Devi Chand, 2. Kripa Shankar, 3.
Amrit Lal and 4. Parsmal of the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 302 read with Section 34, 120-B, 109 and 118 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 20.05.2017, complainant
Hemant Kumar submitted a written report before the Station
House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Sirohi, alleging inter-alia that
on the said day at about 2:00-3:00 p.m., his father Girdhari Lal
Khandelwal was returning towards Sirohi on a TVS Moped after
visiting the plot earmarked for construction of the Kuldevi Temple
of Khandelwal Samaj, situated at Shivganj Highway near Vijay
Pataka. It was alleged that when he reached near Bharat Petrol
Pump and Devi Kripa Hotel, certain unknown persons alighted
from a white-coloured Car, wrongfully restrained him and
assaulted him with hockey sticks, lathis and sharp-edged
weapons. Owing to the said assault, Girdharilal sustained grievous
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB]
injuries on his head, face, abdomen and other parts of the body
and fell on the road, whereafter the assailants fled away from the
place of occurrence. A large number of persons gathered at the
spot and the injured was immediately shifted to the Government
Hospital, Sirohi, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained in
the occurrence.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, an FIR
No.89/2017 came to be registered at Police Station Kotwali,
Sirohi, for the offences punishable under sections 302, 341 &
120B of the Indian Penal Code, whereupon investigation
commenced in accordance with law.
5. After completion of the investigation, Police Station Kotwali,
Sirohi, filed charge-sheet against accused-respondents No.1 Devi
Chand, No.2 Kripa Shankar and No.3 Amrit Lal for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 302 read with Section 34 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and against accused-respondent
No.4 Parsmal for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
120-B, 109 and 118 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, a
charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. Since the offences were exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sirohi, for
trial in accordance with law. Thereafter, the case was make over to
the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, where
it was tried in accordance with law.
6. The learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the
charges against accused-respondents 1.Devi Chand, 2. Kripa
Shankar and 3. Amrit Lal for the offences punishable under
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (4 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
Sections 341, 302 read with Section 34 and 120-B IPC, and
against accused-respondent 4. Parsmal for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 109 and 118 IPC. The
accused-respondents denied the charges, claimed innocence and
sought to be tried.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 27
witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced
documentary evidence viz. Exhibits P-01 to P-55 and 21 material
Articles in support of its case.
8. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements
of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence
were put to them. The accused-appellants denied the prosecution
allegations in toto, claimed themselves to be innocent and
asserted that they had been falsely implicated in the present case.
In defence, they relied upon documentary evidence, including the
police statements of Hemant Kumar (Ex.D-1), Lala Ram (Ex.D-2),
Diary Report (Ex.D-3) and Toll Plaza Slip (Ex.D-4).
9. After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the
respective parties and upon a comprehensive appreciation of the
oral, documentary and other material evidence available on
record, vide judgment dated 15.09.2025, the learned trial court
acquitted all the accused-respondents of the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 302 read with Section 34, 120-B, 109 and
118 of the Indian Penal Code..
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (5 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 15.09.2025, the appellant-
complainant has preferred the present appeal.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant
vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is
contrary to the evidence available on record and suffers from
serious errors of facts as well as law. He further submitted that
the prosecution succeeded in establishing a complete chain of
circumstances proving the guilt of the accused-respondents
beyond reasonable doubt; however, the learned Trial Court, by
misreading the evidence and adopting an erroneous approach,
extended the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents on
wholly untenable grounds.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant further
submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
First Information Report (Ex.P-7) was lodged promptly and
without any undue delay, containing a natural, spontaneous and
consistent narration of the occurrence, thereby completely ruling
out any possibility of embellishment, deliberation or false
implication.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant further
submitted that the testimony of PW-2 Hemant Kumar,
complainant and son of the deceased Girdhari Lal Khandelwal,
clearly established the previous enmity between accused-
respondents 1. Devi Chand and 2. Parsmal on the one hand and
the deceased on the other, as well as the threats previously
extended by them to eliminate the deceased. According to
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (6 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
learned counsel, the said testimony stood substantially
corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses and
the documentary evidence available on record, but the learned
Trial Court failed to appreciate the same in its proper perspective.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant further
submitted that the learned Trial Court gravely erred in observing
that there was no reliable ocular evidence connecting the accused-
respondents with the alleged offences. He also submitted that the
testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and the other supporting witnesses
consistently established the circumstances surrounding the
occurrence, the nature of the assault and the injuries sustained by
the deceased, all of which stood fully corroborated by the medical
evidence.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant further
submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate
the recoveries affected under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, particularly the recovery of the white Duster vehicle bearing
Registration No. MH-04-GJ-3998, the blood-stained clothes of the
accused-respondents i.e. the hockey sticks and the knife
recovered at their instance. According to the Learned counsel,
these recoveries were duly proved through independent witnesses
and documentary evidence, yet the learned Trial Court discarded
the same on insignificant discrepancies relating to the time and
manner of dispatch, which did not affect the substratum of the
prosecution case.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant also
submitted that the learned Trial Court committed a manifest error
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (7 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
in rejecting the electronic evidence, namely, the CCTV footage,
CDs’ and Pen Drive, on technical grounds despite the prosecution
having duly produced the certificates under Section 65-B of the
Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P-32 and Ex.P-33). He submitted that the
electronic evidence clearly established presence and movement of
the white Duster vehicle near the place of occurrence and
constituted a vital incriminating circumstances against the accused
respondents.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant also
submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court
suggesting the possibility of the deceased having died in a road
accident is wholly perverse and contrary to the medical evidence
available on record. He submitted that the post-mortem report
(Ex.P-31) unmistakably established that the deceased sustained
multiple homicidal injuries caused by sharp-edged as well as blunt
weapons, thereby completely ruled out the theory of accidental
death.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant further
submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the
cumulative effect of the recoveries, the medical evidence, the
forensic evidence, the motive, the electronic evidence and the
conduct of the accused-respondents, including their false
explanations under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all of which constituted a
complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards their
guilt.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant further
submitted that the prosecution successfully established the motive
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (8 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
behind the occurrence by proving the previous family dispute and
long-standing enmity between the accused persons and the
deceased. According to the learned counsel, the evidence further
established that accused-respondents Devi Chand had earlier
extended threats to kill the deceased Girdhari Lal Khandelwal,
thereby furnishing a strong motive under Section 8 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant also
submitted that the learned Trial Court magnified minor
discrepancies and trivial inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses while completely overlooking the broad
probabilities of the case and the settled legal position that
insignificant contradictions cannot outweigh otherwise cogent,
reliable and trustworthy evidence.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submitted
that PW-15 Nimba Ram, in his statements recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had
truthfully narrated the manner in which the incident occurred and
had categorically stated that the respondents-accused had
assaulted the deceased, Girdhari Lal Khandelwal, and thereafter
fled from the place of occurrence. It was submitted that although
PW-15 subsequently resiled from his earlier version while deposing
before the Trial Court and was consequently declared hostile, the
circumstances clearly indicate that he had been won over by the
respondents after the investigation.
22. Learned counsel further submitted that the testimony of PW-
15 constituted the most crucial piece of ocular evidence available
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (9 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
to the prosecution, and merely because he turned hostile during
trial, his earlier statements could not have been discarded in their
entirety. He submitted that the learned Trial Court committed a
manifest error in failing to appreciate the true import of the
statements made by PW-15 during investigation as well as his
statement recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section
164 Cr.P.C., which was recorded voluntarily and in accordance with
law.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant , therefore,
submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the entire
factual matrix and the surrounding circumstances in their proper
perspective and erroneously ignored the evidentiary value of the
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the
finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court suffers
from serious illegality and perversity, warranting interference by
this Court in the present appeal.
24. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant-complainant
submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from serious
misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material exhibits and
erroneous application of the settled principles governing
appreciation of circumstantial evidence, resulting in an unjust
acquittal of the accused respondents. He, therefore, prayed that
the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2025 may be set aside and
the accused-respondents may be convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 302 read with Section 34, 120-B,
109 and 118 IPC, in accordance with law.
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (10 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
25. E-Converso, Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the accused-respondents and learned Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned
counsel for the appellant-complainant and supported the
impugned judgment. He submitted that the learned Trial Court has
meticulously appreciated the entire oral, documentary, medical,
scientific and electronic evidence available on record and has
rightly recorded an order of acquittal. According to the learned
counsel, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the
accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt, and no
interference is warranted with the well-reasoned judgment of
acquittal by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
26. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully re-appreciated the entire oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record including the impugned judgment
dated 15.09.2025.
27. At the outset, it is noticed that the prosecution projected PW-
15 Nimba Ram as its sole Eye Witness of the occurrence. However,
while deposing before the Court, the witness resiled from his
previous version and categorically denied having witnessed the
incident. Although his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-
35) was duly proved and he admitted that he made the said
statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate, but he
consistently maintained that the same had been recorded under
fear and pressure allegedly exerted by the police. The witness
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (11 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
reiterated that he had disclosed such coercion even before the
Magistrate also.
28. It is true that a statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. carries greater evidentiary value than a statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the same cannot be discarded
merely because the witness subsequently retracts from it. It is
well settled law that the statements recorded by a Judicial
Magistrate has a higher degree of sanctity and the same cannot be
rejected on flimsy grounds. Nevertheless, it is equally well settled
that such a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a
substantive piece of evidence and it can be used to contradict and
corroborate the statement of witnesses.
29. Examining Ex.P-35 in the light of the surrounding
circumstances, this Court finds that the statement does not inspire
complete confidence. According to PW-15, he had witnessed the
entire occurrence, noticed the registration number of the Duster
vehicle and immediately informed Bhagwati Prasad and his
employer Dinesh Kumar. If that was so, there was no plausible
reason why the written report (Ex.P-7), lodged several hours after
the incident, merely referred to an unknown white – coloured
vehicle without mentioning either its registration number or any
identifying particulars of the assailants. Neither Bhagwati Prasad
nor Dinesh Kumar was examined by the prosecution to
corroborate the version of PW-15. Furthermore, considering that
the witness claimed to have been traveling on a moving
motorcycle, the detailed narration contained in Ex.P-35 appears
inherently improbable. These material omissions and
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (12 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
inconsistencies substantially erode the credibility of the statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the testimony of
PW-15 cannot safely be treated as reliable eyewitness evidence.
The prosecution case, therefore, rests entirely upon circumstantial
evidence.
30. It is a settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that
where the prosecution case is founded on circumstantial evidence,
every incriminating circumstance must be firmly established and
all such circumstances must form a complete and unbroken chain
leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
excluding every other possible hypothesis consistent with
innocence.
31. In the present case, the first circumstance relied upon by the
prosecution is the written report (Ex.P-7). Significantly, the
complainant PW-2 Hemant Kumar admittedly was not an eye
witness to the occurrence. The FIR merely states that some
unknown persons traveling in a white – coloured vehicle had
committed the offence. Neither the registration number of the
vehicle nor the identity or description of the assailants finds
mention therein. PW-2 has also failed to disclose the source from
whom he allegedly received such information. He nowhere states
that PW-15 Nimba Ram, Bhagwati Prasad or Dinesh Kumar had
narrated the incident to him. These omissions assume
considerable significance and render the genesis of the
prosecution story doubtful.
32. The investigation conducted at the place of occurrence also
does not inspire confidence. The site inspection and preparation of
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (13 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
the site plan (Ex.P-4) were carried out at the instance of the
complainant, who admittedly had not witnessed the occurrence.
The Investigating Officer (PW-26 Hansa Ram) candidly admitted in
his cross-examination that he was unaware of the basis on which
the detailed description of the occurrence had been incorporated
in the site plan. Such an unexplained reconstruction of the
incident materially affects reliability of the investigation.
33. The prosecution has next relied upon the alleged movement
of a white Duster vehicle captured in CCTV footage and the
subsequent recovery of the said vehicle along with a hockey stick.
However, no Test Identification Parade was conducted, although
the prosecution itself claimed that PW-15 had seen three
assailants. In the absence of any identification proceedings or any
independent evidence establishing that the accused-respondents
were occupants of the said vehicle at the relevant time, the mere
movement or recovery of the Duster vehicle cannot constitute an
incriminating circumstance against the accused-respondents.
34. Another significant lapse in the investigation is the omission
to collect CCTV footage from the Bharat Petrol Pump situated
immediately opposite the place of occurrence. Instead, reliance
was placed only upon footage obtained from another petrol pump.
Evidence of PW-13 Puneet Kumar further establishes that the
Bharat Petrol Pump and nearby establishments were located in
close proximity to the place of occurrence, yet neither their CCTV
footage was collected nor their owners or employees were
examined. Such omissions have deprived the prosecution of the
best available evidence to be brought on record.
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (14 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
35. The recoveries relied upon by the prosecution also suffer
from serious infirmities. Material contradictions emerge regarding
the dates on which the Duster vehicle, hockey sticks and clothes
were allegedly recovered and deposited in the Malkhana. While the
prosecution witnesses asserted one sequence of events, the
Malkhana register reflects another. More importantly, the clothes
allegedly recovered on 28.05.2017 appear to have been entered in
the Malkhana register on the previous day. No satisfactory
explanation has been offered for this glaring discrepancy. The
Malkhana In-charge, who could have clarified the issue, was also
not examined.
36. Equally significant is the fact that no independent witness
was associated with any of the recovery proceedings, despite
ample opportunity being available both at Mumbai and at the
places where recoveries were allegedly affected in the State of
Rajasthan. Though, the testimony of police witnesses cannot be
discarded solely on the ground of their official status, the
unexplained omission to secure independent witnesses,
particularly in a case involving an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, casts a serious shadow on the fairness and
credibility of the recovery proceedings.
37. The recovery of the alleged knife at the instance of accused
respondent Amrit Lal is also surrounded by similar doubts. No
independent witness was joined despite the availability of several
civilians in the vicinity. Moreover, although human blood is alleged
to have been detected on the recovered articles, the prosecution
has failed to produce any serological report establishing that the
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (15 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
blood group matched was that of the deceased. Consequently, the
recoveries lose much of their evidentiary value.
38. The prosecution has further attempted to establish motive by
alleging previous enmity between the deceased and accused-
respondents Devi Chand and Parasmal. However, the alleged
threats extended to the deceased were not mentioned in the FIR,
no contemporaneous complaint was ever lodged, and Lalit Kumar
the person to whom such threats were allegedly communicated
was not examined. Thus, the alleged motive remains
unsubstantiated.
39. Likewise, the prosecution has failed to establish that the
deceased and accused-respondent Devi Chand had any altercation
at the Kuldevi function on the date of occurrence. No independent
witness has supported this allegation.
40. The allegation of criminal conspiracy and abetment against
accused-respondent Parsmal is also unsupported by any cogent
evidence. Except for the fact that he happened to be the
registered owner of the Duster vehicle, no material has been
produced to demonstrate his participation in any conspiracy or his
role in instigating the commission of the offence. Mere ownership
of the vehicle, in the absence of any independent incriminating
evidence, cannot constitute proof of conspiracy.
41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda
v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, has
authoritatively laid down the governing principles for cases resting
on circumstantial evidence and has enunciated the five golden
principles, described as the Panchsheel, namely:
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (16 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]i. the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully estab-
lished.
ii. the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the ac-
cused, that is to say, they should not be ex-
plainable on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty.
iii. the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency.
iv. they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
v. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the con-
clusion consistent with the innocence of the ac-
cused and must show that in all human probabil-
ity the act must have been done by the accused.
42. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, the
prosecution evidence falls considerably short of the standard
required for sustaining a conviction. The sole eyewitness has not
supported the prosecution case; the statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. remains uncorroborated by independent
evidence; the FIR contains no particulars regarding the assailants;
the investigation suffers from material omissions; the CCTV
evidence fails to establish the identity of the accused respondents;
the recovery proceedings are rendered doubtful by serious
contradictions; the scientific evidence is incomplete; the alleged
motive has not been established; and the prosecution has utterly
failed to prove the alleged conspiracy.
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31474-DB] (17 of 17) [CRLAD-432/2025]
43. The cumulative effect of these deficiencies is that the chain
of circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution
remains incomplete. The evidence on record creates grave
suspicion against the accused respondents, but the suspicion,
however strong, cannot substitute legal proof. The prosecution has
thus failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond the scope
of reasonable doubt.
44. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon a
proper and correct appreciation of the evidence available on
record and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or manifest
error warranting interference by this Court in appellate
jurisdiction. The accused respondents are, therefore, entitled to
the benefit of doubt, and therefore, the judgment of acquittal
deserves to be affirmed.
45. Consequently, the present appeal preferred by the appellant-
complainant is hereby dismissed at admission stage.
46. 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
7/Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal/-
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:03:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/07/2026 at 10:13:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
