Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crlad / 438U / 2025Chotulal Labana vs State Of Rajasthan … on 18 May, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 185/2025
Chotulal Labana S/o Devilal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of
Tanda, Ps Dhamottar, District Pratapgarh, (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Dilip S/o Jagdish Labana, Resident Of Tanda, Dhamottar,
District Pratapagahr (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Gaur
Mr. Shiv Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
Mr. Ravi Panwar - R/2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
18/05/2026
1. The appellant herein has preferred the present appeal being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.04.2025 passed by the
learned Session Judge, Pratapgarh (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case
No.156/2020, whereby the accused-Dilip (respondent No.2) has
been acquitted for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
2. As per the prosecution story, a report came to be filed on
01.11.2019 by the complainant – Chhotulal stating inter-alia that
on 27.10.2019, his daughter (deceased Ranu) had left home to
some unknown place. Later, when she could not be traced out,
missing person report (‘MPR’) was filed. It was further contended
that his daughter Ranu was in touch with accused – Dilip.
Subsequently, when the complainant inquired about the
whereabouts of Ranu from Dilip, no information was made
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (2 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
available and he stated that he was not aware about Ranu and
where she had gone. In the complaint, it was stated that he has
strong apprehension that accused – Dilip is the key person at
whose instance Ranu is missing. It was further stated that on
31.10.2019, in the morning, one Ishwar Lal Patidar informed that
one dead body is lying in the well. It was further stated in the
report that on 01.11.2019, one Bhanwar Lal and Vinod, residents
of the village, stated that they had seen Dilip and Ranu going
towards well on 27.10.2019. Based on this, it was stated in the
FIR that accused – Dilip had pushed Ranu in the well and on
account of which she died. Thereafter, the complainant along with
family members went to the spot and it was later revealed that
the dead body lying in the well was of his daughter Ranu. It was
further stated in the report that on 01.11.2019, one Bhanwar Lal
and Vinod, residents of the village, stated that they had seen Dilip
and Ranu going towards well on 27.10.2019. Based on this, it was
stated in the FIR that accused – Dilip had pushed Ranu in the well
and on account of which she died.
2.1 After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and later charges
were framed and the accused – Dilip was tried for offence under
Section 302 IPC. In support of the prosecution, as many as twelve
witnesses namely PW-1 Karu Lal, PW-2 Bhanwar Lal, PW-3 Vinod,
PW-4 Dharmendra, PW-5 Harish, PW-6 Lokesh, PW-7 Chhotu Lal,
PW-8 Dr. Nitin, PW-9 Shivnarayan, PW-10 Dashrath, PW-11
Ramesh and PW-12 Deepak were examined and 24 documents
were exhibited. In defence, the statement of accused – Dilip was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (3 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
2.2 After hearing the arguments of prosecution side and on
behalf of the accused, learned trial court vide impugned judgment
dated 22.04.2025 acquitted the accused – Dilip for the offence
under Section 302 IPC while extending the benefit of doubt.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, while arguing the present
appeal, submits that this is a case of circumstantial evidence.
Despite there being, ample evidence available on record to
connect each dot and establish the prosecution story, the learned
trial court committed a serious error in acquitting the accused –
Dilip while extending the benefit of doubt.
3.1 PW-2 Bhanwar Lal and PW-3 Vinod were the key witnesses,
who had seen the deceased Ranu with accused – Dilip on
27.10.2019 in the morning at around 5:00 a.m. when they had
gone to attend nature’s call. Both of them had seen Dilip and the
deceased Renu going together at the distance of about 25-30 ft.
by their mobile torch. Despite such evidence being available on
record, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused – Dilip. It
is further argued that apart from the statements of these two
witnesses, which fully support the last seen theory, there is ample
evidence available on record to connect the accused with the
crime-in-question.
3.2. It is further stated that the motive of pushing the deceased
Ranu in the well by accused – Dilip was fully established. Accused
– Dilip was already engaged and despite that deceased Ranu was
insisting to marry him. To get rid of her, accused – Dilip took her
near the well and pushed her into it. Though PW-1 Karu Lal has
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (4 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
later turned hostile, however, he had clearly stated this fact in the
presence of Bhanwar Lal (PW-2) and Vinod (PW-3). This version
was based on the confessional statement given by accused – Dilip.
3.3. The learned trial court has committed further error in
ignoring the confessional statement made by accused – Dilip
before PW-1 Karu Lal (PW-1). It is stated that the said confession
was made before Karu Lal (PW-1) and at that time Bhanwar Lal
(PW-2) and Vinod (PW-3) both were also present. Despite this, the
learned trial court proceeded to acquit the accused – Dilip.
3.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in cases,
which are to be decided purely on circumstantial evidence, two
necessary components are – the evidence to establish the last
seen theory and the motive behind committing such crime. In the
present case, not only the evidence to establish last seen theory
was available but the motive for committing such crime was also
fully established. Despite evidence being available on both the
issues, the learned trial court proceeded to acquit the accused –
Dilip.
Based on the above submissions, it is contended that the
appeal be allowed and the judgment be quashed and set-aside
and the accused be convicted for the offence under Section 302
IPC.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the submissions made
by learned counsel for the appellant and argued that the judgment
passed by the learned trial court deserves to be set-aside.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (5 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
accused – respondent No.2 submits that there is no doubt that
this is a case of circumstantial evidence and therefore, in order to
establish guilt of the accused, the prosecution is required to
connect each dot so as to convict the accused – Dilip in the
present crime. He further argued that so-called last seen theory as
sought to be propounded by the appellant is not trustworthy as
PW-1 Karu Lal has turned hostile and has not supported the
version of Bhanwar Lal (PW-2) and Vinod (PW-3) before whom
such confessional statement was allegedly so made by accused –
Dilip.
5.1 PW-2 Bhanwar Lal has also stated that Karu Lal (PW-1)
disclosed the fact of confessional statement, wherein Dilip has
admitted his guilt and accepted that on account of consistent
pressure by Ranu for getting married, he had pushed her in the
well.
5.2 PW-3 Vinod has narrated that Dilip and deceased Ranu
wanted to get married, however, Dilip was already engaged and
their marriage was not possible on account of both belonging to
the same family. It is further stated that Karu Lal (PW-1) met him
and Bhanwar Lal (PW-2) and before them Karu Lal stated that
Dilip had given confessional statement that since Ranu was
insisting and was pressing hard upon him to get married,
therefore, he had pushed her in the well.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (6 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
5.3 The version of these two witnesses, on which the entire
prosecution story was based, loses its sanctity when their version
is totally denied by PW-1 Karu Lal.
Based on the above submissions, it is contended that the
learned trial court has rightly proceeded to acquit the accused –
Dilip.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that this is a case of
circumstantial evidence and the prosecution was required to
connect each dot to bring home the conviction of accused Dilip. As
per the prosecution, PW-2 and PW-3 were the key witnesses, who
had seen deceased Ranu and accused – Dilip together just before
the incident. These two witnesses were produced to establish last
seen theory. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that
they had seen deceased Ranu and accused Dilip in the morning at
around 5:00 a.m. on 27.10.2019. Not only this, both these
witnesses have further stated that as a matter of fact, a
confessional statement was given by accused – Dilip before Karu
Lal and Karu Lal stated this fact before them and not only this,
even the reason for pushing Ranu was also stated as she was
pressing hard to get married.
8. On reading of statements of PW-2 and PW-3, at first look, it
indicates that these witnesses had, in fact, seen accused – Dilip
and deceased Ranu going together towards the well belonging to
Ishwar Lal where later the body of deceased Ranu was recovered.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (7 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
However, these versions become highly doubtful and do not induce
confidence so as to believe such version to be true when PW-1
Karu Lal, who is alleged to have seen Dilip making confessional
statement in the presence of PW-2 and PW-3, has turned hostile.
The material facts as noted in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and
PW-3 are as under :-
(i)- PW-1 Karu Lal states that he had not narrated any fact
with regard to confessional statement made by accused – Dilip.
(ii)- PW-1 also states that he knows PW-2 and PW-3,
however, he had no conversation with these persons regarding
deceased Ranu and accused – Dilip.
(iii)- So also, accused-Dilip never disclosed to PW-1 about his
relation with deceased Ranu nor he disclosed that he was
previously engaged.
(iv)- PW-1 does not support the version of PW-2 and PW-3
about the fact that Ranu was insisting Dilip to get married.
(v)- PW-1 Karu Lal has even gone to the extent of saying
that he is not even aware as to how deceased Ranu died nor he
had stated anything to Chhotu Lal (father of deceased Ranu)
regarding her relation with Dilip or any other fact relating to the
present incident.
(vi)- PW-2 Bhanwar Lal and PW-3 Vinod in their statement
referred to confessional statement as told by PW-1 Karu Lal, but
Karu Lal does not support this version.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (8 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
(vii)- It is to be noted that incident is alleged to have
occurred in the morning at around 5:00 a.m. on 27.10.2019. In
the month of October, the sun rises usually around 6:00 a.m.,
therefore, the version of these two witnesses that they have seen
at 5:00 a.m. through torch light from a distance of about 25-30 ft.
further creates doubt about the version wherein they contended
that they have seen Dilip and deceased Ranu on the date of
incident.
8.1 If the trustworthiness of the story as the prosecution has
stated in the present case is tested, it does not establish a case
based on which accused – Dilip could be convicted for the offence
under Section 302 IPC. The star witness PW-1 Karu Lal, though
not an eye-witness, was a witness before whom a confessional
statement was alleged to have been made by accused – Dilip,
however, he has turned hostile. He has denied any conversation
with accused Dilip with regard to relation with deceased Ranu. He
has further denied to have had any discussion regarding the
present incident with PW-2 and PW-3. Coupled with this, the other
two witnesses, which prosecution has produced in order to
establish the fact that these two witnesses had seen accused –
Dilip with deceased Ranu on the date of incident when they were
also going towards the place of incident i.e. open well belonging to
Ishwar Lal. The version of these two witnesses becomes unreliable
and not trustworthy in light of the statement of Karu Lal (PW-1).
9. The prosecution though produced evidence of as many as
nine witnesses apart from three witnesses already discussed i.e.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (9 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. The other witnesses who were examined
are as under:
PW-4 Dharmendra Witness to Panchayatnama of dead
bodyPW-5 Harish Witness to Panchayatnama of handing-
over of dead body
PW-6 Lokesh Witness to Panchayatnama of handing-
over of dead body
PW-7 Chotulal Complainant who lodged FIR
PW-8 Dr. Nitin Witness who prepared the PMR
PW-9 Shivnarayn Witness to FSL report sent from
maalkhana
PW-10 Dhashrath Witness to depositing FSL report
PW-11 Ramesh Witness to Panchayatnama of dead
body and handing-over of dead body
PW-12 Deepak Witness to the investigation
All these aforesaid witnesses are the witnesses to the
proceedings undertaken by the investigating agency after recovery
of dead body. These witnesses could have some evidentiary value
only if the cause of death was to be ascertained. In the present
case, for the purpose of identifying as to who committed the
crime, the only evidence available on record is that of PW-1, PW-2
and PW-3. As already discussed, the evidence of these three
witnesses was not found to be trustworthy.
10. It is undisputed that the present is a case of circumstantial
evidence and thus the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State
of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] have to be established to
prove guilt on basis of circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Apex
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (10 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
Court while discussing the said principles in the case of Nusrat
Parween Vs. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2025 SC 105)
observed as under:
“7. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence
that conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely on
circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed
credible and trustworthy. In cases involving circumstantial
evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to the
conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all the
established facts point irrefutably to the Accused person’s guilt.
The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and
should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the Accused.
In other words, from the chain of incriminating circumstances, no
reasonable doubt can be entertained about the Accused person’s
innocence, demonstrating that it was the Accused and none other
who committed the offence. The law with regard to conviction
based on circumstantial evidence has been crystalised by this
Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of
Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein it was held:
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
v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where
the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807]
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(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (11 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]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
Accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
Accused.”
10.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court while elaborating the principles
in the cases of acquittal on basis of lack of circumstantial evidence
in the case of Sangappa Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal
Appeal No.1715/2017; decided on 27.02.2025) observed as
under:
“19. The High Court labelled the Trial Court’s
appreciation as “perverse” but, on closer inspection,
we see that the Trial Court took a “possible view” of
the evidence, one that carefully noted the lack of
consistent last-seen evidence, the unreliability of key
witnesses, and the failure to prove recoveries
conclusively. In cases of circumstantial evidence, where
the prosecution must prove each link in the chain
beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellate courts should
exercise extreme caution before reversing an acquittal.
It is a fundamental judicial principle that the
presumption of innocence, coupled with the benefit of
doubt, should not be lightly set aside, and any
interference with an acquittal is warranted only where
the trial court’s findings are patently erroneous or
manifestly unjust.”
10.2. In the present case, as discussed above, the
prosecution has neither been able to prove motive nor ‘last seen
theory’ as there are serious contradictions in the statements of
witnesses. Further, PW-1 Karu Lal, who has been regarded as the
most essential witness to prove the extra-judicial confession of the
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (12 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
accused, has turned hostile. Further, he has not supported the
version of PW-2 Bhanwarlal and PW-3 Vinod to whom he had
allegedly told about such extra-judicial confession. Hence, keeping
into the consideration the principles crystallized by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, it cannot conclusively be observed that it is no one
but accused who has committed murder of the deceased when the
chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete.
11. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce
the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka (AIR 2024 SC 1252) and Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 2024 SC
2252), as hereunder-:
Mallappa & Ors. (Supra):
“36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be
summarized as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial
and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all
evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a
miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere
possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of
acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in
appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (13 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and
must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate
Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or
fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra):
“38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the
principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of
CrPC as follows:
“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a
possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the
evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion
which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record
was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.”
39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has
to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider
material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are
possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused
is possible from the evidence available on record.”
12. Learned trial court passed the impugned judgment of
acquittal of the accused-respondent under Section 302 IPC, which
in the given circumstances, is justified in law, because as per the
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (14 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the aforementioned judgments, to the effect that the judgment of
the trial court can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when it
demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in
arriving at such decision; but in the present case, the learned trial
court, before passing the impugned judgment had examined each
and every witnesses at a considerable length and duly analyzed
the documents produced before it, coupled with examination of
the oral as well as documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned
judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as
to warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
13. The scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by
the learned trial court is very limited, and if the impugned
judgment of the learned trial court demonstrates a legally
plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify
the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforementioned judgment, and thus, on that count also, the
impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the
instant appeal.
14. Learned trial court has meticulously considered all relevant
aspects, including motive, circumstantial evidence, the alleged
extra-judicial confession and upon a comprehensive appreciation
of the entire evidence, rightly held that the prosecution failed to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
15. On perusal of the findings arrived at by the learned trial
court so also re-appreciating the evidence on record, this Court
finds no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24074-DB] (15 of 15) [CRLAD-185/2025]
on arriving at a conclusion that prosecution has not been able to
establish the case of reasonable doubt, therefore, the learned trial
court has rightly acquitted the accused – Dilip.
16. As an upshot of the above discussion, this Court finds no
reason to reverse the findings recorded by the learned trial court.
Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
13-Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:22:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
