Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Bhawani Singh @ Mukesh Shekhawat vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 30 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 136/2018
Bhawani Singh @ Mukesh Shekhawat S/o Shri Ram Kumar
Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Badi Jodi, Police Station
Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur, Presently Residing At 6, Durga Vihar
Colony, Bakeri Walo Ki Gali, Police Station Sadar, Jaipur
(Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)
---Accused-Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma with Ms.
Kamini Pareek, Shri Gaurav Sharma,
Shri Jitendra Choudhary and Shri
Sarthak Choubey.
For Respondent(s) : Shri Amit Kumar Punia, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Date of Conclusion of Arguments :: 28/04/2026
Judgment Reserved On :: 28/04/2026
Whether the full judgment or
only the operative part is pronounced : : Full Judgment
Judgment Pronounced On :: 30/04/2026
Per Hon’ble Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Under challenge in the instant appeal is the judgement dated
27.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short-`the learned trial court’) in
Sessions Case No.2/14 whereby, the accused-appellant (for short-
`the appellant’) has been convicted and vide order dated
06.03.2018, sentenced as under:
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (2 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
1. Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.2,00,000/-; in default whereof, three years’ additional
rigorous imprisonment.
2. Section 201 IPC: Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs.50,000/-; in default whereof, one year’s addi-
tional rigorous imprisonment.
All the sentences to run concurrently
The relevant facts in brief are that on finding a ‘severed
human head’ of an unidentified person near Railway Line, Ajmer
Pulia, Jaipur, an FIR No.323 dated 27.12.2013 came to be lodged
by Shri Mahesh Joshi-Sub Inspector, GRP Station, Jaipur at Police
Station GRP, Jaipur under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against
unknown persons. After investigation, the appellant as also co-
accused Mohammad Asif were charge-sheeted under Sections
302, 201 and 120B IPC. The co-accused being juvenile, his trial
was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur. Charges
under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC were framed against the
appellant. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced as
stated hereinabove.
It may be pertinent to observe here that vide order dated
22.09.2022, co-accused has been convicted by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur under Sections 302, 201 and 120B
IPC.
Assailing the impugned judgement, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that findings of the learned trial court are
based on conjectures and surmises and he has been convicted
without there being any legally admissible evidence available on
record against him. He contended that relying on the testimony of
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (3 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
Deepak (PW7), Roli @ Neetu (PW11) and Shakuntala (PW30), it
was held by the learned trial court that he was “seen last” in the
company of the deceased whereas, they have claimed to have
seen the deceased going with him on 25.12.2013 at about 10-
10.30 AM and his severed head was found on 27.12.2013, i.e.,
after two days of the “last seen” and in view of large interregnum
time lag, this evidence was rendered of no significance.
He further contended that the second circumstance relied
upon by the learned trial court against him was recovery of body
parts of the deceased at his behest as also recovery of blood
smeared articles allegedly from his residential house. He
contended that since, the body parts were recovered from an open
place accessible to all, this recovery does not inspire confidence.
He submitted that so far as recovery of incriminating articles from
his house is concerned, the prosecution did not lead any evidence
to establish that the subject house, as a matter of fact, was either
under his ownership or possession. Further, learned counsel
canvassed that the prosecution has failed to specify the place
where the deceased was murdered. Inviting attention towards the
site plan (Ex.P6), he contended that in it, the place of murder
committed allegedly by him either alone or with co-accused, was
not reflected. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed,
the judgement impugned dated 27.02.2018 be quashed and set
aside and he may be acquitted of the charges framed against him.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the
submissions and supporting the findings recorded by the learned
trial court, contended that the learned trial court has held the
appellant guilty of the charges framed against him based on
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (4 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
appreciation of cogent evidence available on record. He submitted
that the deceased was `seen last’ in the company of the appellant
on 25.12.2013 and although, the severed head of the deceased
was found on 27.12.2013 but, the autopsy report (Ex.P23) dated
30.12.2013 reflects that death had occurred around 5-6 days prior
to the postmortem examination of the body which comes to about
25.12.2013. With regard to submission of learned counsel for the
appellant as to recovery of the body parts of the deceased from an
open place, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the same
were stuffed in a jute sack which was sealed and therefore, the
learned trial court has rightly relied upon the recovery as it was
sufficiently concealed. He further contended that the prosecution
was able to establish that the house-the scene of crime, was
under the ownership and possession of the appellant. He,
therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
Heard. Considered.
As per the prosecution case, the deceased-Neeraj Singh was
brother-in-law of the appellant being brother of appellant’s wife,
the appellant had fraudulently obtained two blank stamp papers
worth Rs.10/- each signed by Smt. Shakuntla and Smt. Roli @
Neetu-mother and sister of the deceased respectively and they
had an apprehension that the same could be used by the appellant
to deprive them of their immovable property. When the same were
demanded from the appellant, under the pretext of returning
them, the appellant took the deceased on 25.12.2013 along with
him on a motorcycle and committed his murder along with the co-
accused.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (5 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
The prosecution story begins from registration of the FIR
No.323/13 on 27.12.2013 lodged by a Sub-Inspector, General
Railway Police, Jaipur wherein, it was stated that they found a
severed head of an unknown person near Railway Line at Ajmer
Pulia, Railway Station, Jaipur along with a blood stained plastic
sack.
From the postmortem report of the body of deceased
(Ex.P23) as well as from the testimony of Dr. Deepali Pathak
(PW9) and Dr. Nandlal Disaniya (PW29)- the members of the
Medical Board which conducted the autopsy, it is proved that the
body of the deceased was found cut into 6 pieces; head, torso and
all four limbs separate and there were as many as 17 injuries on
the body. About 7 injuries were found to be anti-mortem in nature
whereas, remaining were, postmortem in nature including
severance of various body parts from each other.
In view of the aforesaid, it is found to be an established case
of homicidal death; rather, a brutal murder.
Indisputably, it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. A
perusal of the judgement impugned dated 27.02.2018 reveals that
the learned trial court has relied upon the following circumstances
to connect the appellant with the offences:
(1) the last seen;
(2) recovery of incriminating evidence;
(3) motive.
In its much celebrated judgement in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra: (1984) 4
Supreme Court Cases 116, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (6 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
down following cardinal principles to be taken into consideration
while considering the case based on circumstantial evidence:
“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 con-
clusion 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 gram-
matical 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 v.
State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0167/1973: 1973
CriLJ 1783 where the following observations were
made:
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 con-
sistent 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 conclu-
sive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hy-
pothesis 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 accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (7 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based
on circumstantial evidence.
If the evidence in the instant case is tested on the anvil of
the aforesaid golden principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, following situation emerges:
So far as last seen evidence is concerned, the prosecution
case rests upon the testimony of Deepak (PW7), Roli @ Neetu
(PW11) and Shakuntala (PW30)-brother, sister and mother of the
deceased respectively. Roli @ Neetu also happens to be wife of the
appellant. Deepak and Shakuntala have categorically stated in
their examination in chief that on 25.12.2013, the appellant took
the deceased Neeraj Singh with him at about 10-10.30 AM on a
motorcycle under the pretext of returning the blank stamp papers
as his friend had come and thereafter, only the severed head of
the deceased was found on 27.12.2013. Although, they have been
subjected to very exhaustive cross-examination but, were not
suggested during it that the appellant did not take the deceased
along with him on 25.12.2013 at the given time under the pretext
of returning the signed blank stamp papers. It is trite law that if a
statement by a witness in his examination-in-chief relating to
material aspects of the case is not challenged during his cross-
examination, the same is deemed to be admitted by the other
side. Further, it may be worthy to note here that while Shakuntala
has, in her police statement (Ex.D4) specifically stated that her
son Neeraj Singh was taken by the appellant on his motorcycle on
25.12.2013 at about 10-11 AM under the pretext of the returning
the stamp papers; but, during her cross examination, instead of
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (8 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
confronting her with this statement, it was suggested that this fact
was not mentioned in the Ex.D4. Moreover, on such suggestion,
she has categorically asserted that rather than going with the
appellant, the deceased was taken away by the appellant.
Although, Roli @ Neetu has not stated, specifically, that on
25.12.2013, the appellant took the deceased along with him on
the motorcycle but, has stated that the appellant had promised
the deceased to return the stamp papers in her name as also in
the name of her mother, at his home.
In the backdrop of aforesaid evidence, this Court is
convinced that the deceased had gone at about 10-11 am on
25.12.2013 with the appellant on his motorcycle.
Further, indisputably, after 10-11 AM of 25.12.2013, the
deceased was not seen alive and his severed head was found near
the Railway Line on 27.12.2013 by the police authorities. In the
autopsy report (Ex.P23) dated 30.12.2013, it is mentioned that
the deceased had expired within about and around 5-6 days prior
to the postmortem examination which stood corroborated from the
testimony of Dr. Deepali Pathak (PW9) and Nandlal Disaniya
(PW29)-the Members of the Medical Board which conducted the
autopsy. In view thereof, the time of murder of the deceased
comes around 25.12.2013, i.e., the date on which he was seen
last in the company of the appellant. Therefore, this Court finds no
substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that in view of large time lag in between the evidence of
last seen and the recovery of the severed head of the deceased,
the evidence looses its significance.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (9 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
Another circumstance relied upon by the learned trial court
to record the finding of conviction of the appellant is the recovery
of incriminating evidence either on his disclosure statement or
otherwise. As already observed, the severed head of the deceased
was found by the police authorities near the Railway Line on
27.12.2013 at about 10.50 AM along with a blood stained gunny
bag nearby. The appellant was arrested on 29.12.2013 vide arrest
memo-(Ex.P11). On his disclosure statement made under Section
27 of the Evidence Act, vide seizure memo (Ex.P13), five body
parts of the deceased were recovered on 29.12.2013. The body
parts comprising of a torso and four severed limbs, were stuffed in
a jute bag which had to be retrieved by cutting it. The clothes on
the body parts as also the jute bag were found to be blood
stained. The recovery stood corroborated from the autopsy report
(Ex.P23) as also from the testimony of Dr. Deepali Pathak (PW9)
who has stated that they received six body parts; one from the
GRP Station and rest five, from the Shyam Nagar Police Station
and upon examination, the same were found to be of the same
person. From the DNA examination report (Ex.P64) also, it was
established that the body parts belonged to same person and the
DNA obtained from the tooth of the deceased as also from his
right femur bone matched with the DNA obtained from the blood
samples of Smt. Shakuntala and of Deepak @ Akshay-mother and
brother of the deceased respectively. Thus, we find the recovery of
body parts of the deceased on the disclosure statement of the
appellant to be a strong piece of evidence against him. Although,
Gyarsi (PW8), a Constable in the Shyam Nagar Police Station and
one of the panch witnesses to the seizure memo (Ex.P13) has
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (10 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
stated that the place of recovery was an open place accessible to
all but, we do not countenance the submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant that being so, the recovery is
rendered doubtful inasmuch as, from the seizure memo, it is
reflected that the body parts were found stuffed in a jute bag
which was sealed and was thrown in a pile of garbage. From the
site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.P14), it is apparent that it
was near the Amanishah Nala with no residence around. Thus, we
are convinced that the sack containing the body parts were
sufficiently concealed from the public view.
Further, we find that vide seizure memo (Ex.P4), on
28.12.2013, a number of incriminating material such as blood
smeared soil, blood stained pillows, mattress, axe, spade, a
wooden strip, an empty plastic sack, a pant, a shirt and an
underwear were found from the rooms situated in the Plot no.6,
Durga Vihar Colony, Police Station Sadar, Jaipur, the residential
house of the appellant. It is worthy to mention here that the two
blank stamp papers each worth Rs.10-Ex.P38 and Ex.P39 bearing
the signature of Shakuntala (PW30) and Roli (Ex.PW11)
respectively were also recovered from the residence of the
appellant. As per the prosecution case, this is the place where the
deceased was murdered, was cut to pieces and was taken to be
thrown away at different places. It may be pertinent to observe
here that as per the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P62),
human blood was found on all the articles barring the underwear.
As per this report, although, the blood was detected on the axe
and the spade but, it was not sufficient to conclude that it was the
human blood. Although, it was contended on behalf of the
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (11 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
appellant that the prosecution led no evidence to establish that
this place of recovery belonged to him; however, the evidence on
record suggests otherwise. All the three witnesses of the “last
seen”, i.e., Deepak, Roli @ Neetu and Shakuntala have stated in
unison that the deceased was taken by the appellant to his home
under the pretext of returning the blank signed stamp papers and
they were not confronted at all on this aspect during the cross-
examination.
Further, vide seizure memo-Ex.P24 dated 03.01.2014, a
motorcycle used by the appellant in commission of the offence
was recovered on his disclosure statement along with its
registration certificate. In the registration certificate, the
residential address of the appellant is reflected as 6A, Durga Vihar
Colony, Jaipur. Mohammad Istkar (PW21), R/o Plot No.8, Durga
Colony Vihar has stated in his examination-in-chief that he knows
Bhawani Singh being his neighbour; but, he was not subjected to
any cross-examination on behalf of the appellant on this aspect. It
is also worthy to mention here that in the arrest memo of the
appellant (Ex.P11), he is shown to be the resident of House No.6,
Durga Vihar Colony, Police Station Sadar, Jaipur but, it was not
challenged by him during trial qua his address.
In the conspectus of the aforesaid evidence, we are
convinced that from the evidence on record, it was established
that the residential house, from where the incriminating material
was recovered on 28.12.2013 vide seizure memo (Ex.P4)
belonged to the appellant.
So far as motive is concerned, it is proved from the material
on record that the appellant had obtained two blank stamp papers
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (12 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
each worth Rs.10 duly signed by Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Roli @
Neetu-mother and sister of the deceased respectively which the
complainant party apprehended could have been put to misuse by
the appellant and under the pretext of returning the same, he had
taken the deceased along with him on the fateful day to his house
and murdered him. As already observed, the aforesaid two blank
stamp papers were also recovered from the residential house of
the appellant on 28.12.2013 vide seizure memo-Ex.P4.
We also notice another salient aspect of the case not
appreciated by the learned trial court.
Roli @ Neetu (PW11) has stated, in her examination-in-chief,
that on the next day of the appellant taking the deceased along
with him, when she asked the appellant about her brother, he told
that he has murdered her brother and challenged her to lodge the
report wherever she desired. A perusal of her cross-examination
reflects that though, it was thoroughly done but, her this
deposition was not challenged at all. Further, Deepak as PW7 has
also corroborated the aforesaid statement and he was also not
subjected to cross-examination on this aspect meaning thereby
that the defence has admitted that the appellant made extra-
judicial confession to his wife-Roli @ Neetu.
In view of the aforesaid analysis of the evidence available on
record, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to
establish, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading a complete chain
of circumstantial evidence that the appellant had committed
murder of the deceased Neeraj Singh and concealed the evidence
about commission of the same and therefore, the appeal deserves
to be dismissed.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (13 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018]
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed and the findings
recorded by the learned trial court in Sessions Case No.2/14 vide
judgement 27.02.2018 are confirmed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
RS /95-s
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:41:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:03:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)