Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Dalchand @ Bablu S/O Ramsingh B/C Jatav vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 16 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 397/2018
1. Dalchand @ Bablu S/o Ramsingh, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Vill/ward No 18 Ps Nala Bazar Ps Kaman
Dist.bharatpur (At Present Confined At Centre Jail Jaipur
Since Dt. 22.04.2012)
2. Padam Singh @ Pappi S/o Ramsingh, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Vill/ward No 18 Ps Nala Bazar Ps Kaman Dist.
Bharatpur (At Present Confined At Centre Jail Jaipur
Since Dt. 22.04.2012)
Accused-Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through PP, Raj.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 450/2018
Anju Rohilla W/o Late Girraj Prasad, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Rohilla (Chippi), R/o Nala Bajar, Kaman, District Bharatpur.
—-Injured-Complainant-Appellant-Victim
Versus
1. Meera Kumari W/o Manoj Kumar, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Indra Enclave, Police Station Phase-II, Delhi.
2. Vijaya Kumari D/o Ram Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Village/ward No.18, Police Station Nala Bajar, Kaman,
Village/city Kaman, District Bharatpur.
Accused-Respondents
3. Central Bureau of Investigation Through PP
—-Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 330/2023
1. Vidhya Devi (Since Deceased),
1/1. Rameswar Dayal Rohilla S/o Late Khem Chand, R/o
51/77, Rajat Path Mansarovar Jaipur
1/2. Rajendra Prasad Rohilla S/o Late Khem Chand, R/o Nala
Bazar, Kamah
1/3. Anju Devi @ Durga W/o Late Girraj Prasad Rohilla
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (2 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
—-Injured-Victim-Appellants
Versus
1. Dal Chand @ Bablu S/o Ram Singh, R/o Ward No 18 Ps
Nala Bajar Kaman Vill. / City Kaman Dist. Bharatpur
2. Padam Singh @ Pappi @ Bada Bablu S/o Ram Singh, R/o
Ward No 18 Police Station Nala Bajar Kaman Vill. / City
Kaman Dist. Bharatpur
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
—-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma with
Ms. Kamini Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Shri Shyam Singh Yadav Spl. PP (CBI)
with Shri Tarun Yadav
Shri Rajeev Surana, Sr. Adv. Assisted
by Shri Rajendra Rohilla
Shri Anuj Rohilla
Shri Umag Jain
Ms. Muskan Verma
Shri Shubham Rohilla and
Shri Siddharth Sogani
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
Date of Conclusion of Arguments :: 07/04/2026
Judgment Reserved On :: 07/04/2026
Whether the full judgment or
only the operative part is pronounced : : Full Judgment
Judgment Pronounced On : : 16/04/2026
Per Hon’ble Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
All the three criminal appeals are directed against the
judgement dated 25.7.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI
Cases No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur (in short-`the learned trial
court’) in Sessions Case No.02/2014 whereby, while acquitting the
accused Kumari Vijaya and Meera Kumari @ Meenu of the charges
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (3 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
under Sections 148, 120B, 452, 302 or 302/149 or 302/120B, 307
or 307/149 or 307/120B and 323 or 323/149 IPC, the accused-
appellants Dalchand and Padam Singh @ Pappi have been
convicted and sentenced as under:
1. Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, one month’s additional
simple imprisonment.
2. Section 307 or 307/34, 307/120B IPC: Seven years’
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default
whereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment.
3. Section 452 IPC: Three years’ simple imprisonment and
fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default whereof, ten days’ additional
simple imprisonment.
4. Section 120B IPC: Five years’ simple imprisonment and
fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default whereof, ten days’ additional
simple imprisonment.
All the sentences to run concurrently.
It may be pertinent to observe here that although, the
appellants were convicted under Section 302 or Section 302/34 or
302/120B IPC but, it appears that on account of a clerical error,
they were sentenced only under Section 302 IPC.
While, the appeal no.397/2018 has been preferred by the
accused-appellants (for short-`the appellants’) against the
judgment of their conviction, the appeal no.450/2018 has been
preferred by the injured-complainant against acquittal of the co-
accused Kumari Vijaya and Meera Kumari @ Meenu and the
Criminal Appeal no.85/2019 has been preferred by the injured-
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (4 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
victim seeking enhancement of sentence for the appellants-
Dalchand and Padam Singh.
The relevant facts in brief are that based on the parcha
bayan dated 29.07.2010 (Ex.P1) of Anju Rohilla (PW1) made at
Heritage Hospital, Agra, an FIR No.443 dated 30.07.2010 came to
be registered at Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 307 and 302 IPC. It
was alleged therein that on account of enmity, the appellants
along with co-accused Paras Ram and Praveen came to their home
in the morning of 29.07.2010 at about 7:45-8:00 am and opened
gunfire resulting into death of her father-in-law-Khem Chand, her
husband- Girraj Prasad and gunshot injuries to her brother-in-law-
Rajendra Prasad, self and her sister-in-law. It was further alleged
that a gunshot was also fired at her mother-in-law but, she
ducked. Allegations against Vijaya and Meera were made of
inflicting injuries with lathies. After investigation, the appellants
were charge-sheeted under various provisions of IPC alongwith
co-accused. Charges under Sections 148, 120B, 452, 302 or
302/149 or 302/120B, 307, 307/120B or 307/149, 323 or
323/149 were framed against them. After trial, they have been
convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove.
Assailing the impugned judgment, Shri Rajesh Sharma,
learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was
inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, although, the deceased as well
as the injured Rajendra Prasad were Advocates. Elaborating his
submission, learned counsel submitted that though, the incident is
alleged to have taken place at about 7:45-8:00 am on 29.03.2010
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (5 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
and as per the prosecution case, the police had immediately
reached there but, the FIR came to be registered as late as on
30.07.2010 based on the parcha bayan of Anju made at about
8.00 pm, i.e., 12 hours after the incident. He canvassed that this
unexplained delay raises a serious doubt as to veracity of the
prosecution case. Learned counsel further submitted that not only
there was delay in registration of the FIR but, there was also delay
in recording the statement of the eye-witnesses S/Shri Jamna
Prasad (PW14), Badleram Meena (PW15) and Chandrabhan
Sharma (PW16) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as late as on
14.04.2011, which seriously eroded their credibility.
He contended that although, the parties were neighbour and
knew each other very well still, the FIR lodged by one of the
injured eye witnesses lacked name of the appellant-Padam Singh
in it and only as an afterthought, he has falsely been implicated in
this case.
Shri Rajesh submitted that while recording the findings of
their conviction, the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the
deposition of the prosecution witnesses including that of injured
eye witnesses namely; Anju Rohilla (PW1), Pramila Rohilla (PW2)
and Rajendra Prasad Rohilla (PW3), was full of contradictions and
improvements on material aspects of the case and it was not safe
to hold them guilty based on such sketchy evidence.
Learned counsel argued that although, it was alleged that
they fired a number of gunshots but, only seven bullets were
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (6 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
recovered from the place of incident which belies the prosecution
case.
Shri Rajesh Sharma contended that there was no recovery of
any incriminating material from their possession and the learned
trial Court has recorded their conviction based on conjectures and
surmises without there being any legally admissible evidence
against them. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed,
the judgment impugned dated 25.07.2018 be quashed and set
aside to the extent of their conviction and they may be acquitted
of the charges framed against them.
Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor, opposing the
submissions, contended that the findings of the learned trial Court
are based on appreciation of cogent material on record in the light
of settled legal principles. He submitted that the prosecution was
able to establish guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt
and therefore, the findings warrant no interference.
Shri Rajeev Surana, learned senior counsel for the
complainant, submitted that there was no delay in registration of
the FIR. He submitted that two of the family members died at the
spot on account of gunshot injuries and remaining family
members were seriously injured due to assault by the appellants
along with co-accused and they had to rush first to local Hospital
at Kaman, thereafter to RBM Hospital, Bharatpur from where,
looking to their serious condition, were taken to the Hospital at
Agra. He submitted that in these circumstances, it could not be
held that there was any delay in lodging the FIR. In so far as delay
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (7 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
in recording Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the eye witnesses is
concerned, learned senior counsel submitted that being
dissatisfied with the investigation by the State Agency, they had
filed the S.B. Civil Misc. Petition No.2472/2010 before his Court
wherein, vide its order dated 28.03.2011, the learned Single
Judge of this Court transferred the investigation to CBI and once
the CBI took over the investigation, they recorded the statement
of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including
that of eye witnesses namely; S/Shri Jamna Prasad, Badleram
Meena and Chandrabhan Sharma. Inviting attention of this Court
towards the statement of Anju Rohilla (PW1), he would submit
that she has explained that Padam Singh @ Pappi was also known
as Bablu as named in the FIR and she was not put to any cross-
examination on this aspect. In so far as recovery of 7 bullets is
concerned, Shri Rajeev submitted that from the prosecution
evidence, it was reflected that some of the bullets were found
embedded in the body of the deceased/injured which explained
recovery of only 7 bullets from the place of incident despite firing
of multiple gun shots by the appellants and the co-accused.
Lastly, he submitted that there were no contradictions or
improvements in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses
touching the material aspects of the case so as to doubt their
credibility. Referring to and relying upon the deposition of the
injured eye witnesses namely; Anju Rohilla, Pramila Rohilla and
Rajendra Prasad Rohilla, Shri Surana canvassed that they have
given graphic details of the manner in which the offences were
committed by the accused-appellants and the same was
creditworthy. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (8 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
Heard. Considered.
From the testimony of Dr. Pramod Bansal (PW11), Head of
the Medical Board which conducted the autopsy, it was established
that Girraj and Khemchand expired on account of multiple gunshot
injuries. From the postmortem report (Ex.P24) of the body of the
deceased-Girraj and the X-ray report (Ex.P25), it was reflected
that three bullets were found in his body and cause of death, as
per the opinion of the Medical Board, was hemorrhage and shock
due to firearm injuries to lungs, heart and intestine.
Similarly, as per the postmortem report (Ex.P29) of the body
of Khemchand and X-ray Report (Ex.P30), one bullet was found in
his body with two entry and exit wounds of firearm and the cause
of death, as per the opinion of the Medical Board, was hemorrhage
and shock due to firearm injuries to skull, brain, neck, face,
intestine and lever. Thus, it was an established case of homicidal
death which was not even disputed by the appellants inasmuch as
the prosecution witnesses were suggested during their cross-
examination that the deceased were shot dead by some
unidentified person/a gang who had rivalry with them.
Similarly, Dr. Ashok Mathur (PW12)-a Medical Jurist in RBM
Hospital, Bharatpur, upon examination of Anju Rohilla (PW1),
found two injuries on her body, simple in nature and caused by
blunt weapon. He has also examined Shri Khemchand and found
multiple gunshot injuries on his body. On 29.07.2010, he has also
examined Smt. Pramila @ Pappi and found one entry wound and
corresponding exit wound on her body with gunshot. Dr. Devendra
Gupta (PW19), a General Surgeon and Medico Legal Consultant at
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (9 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
Heritage Hospital, Agra, upon examination of Rajendra Prasad
Rohilla, vide injury report-Ex.P35, found him to be grievously
injured from gunshot which was found to be dangerous to life. He
has also examined Smt. Pramila and found, as per the injury
report (Ex.P10), to be grievously injured from the gunshot which
was opined to be dangerous to life. Dr. Rajkumar Choudhary
(PW33)-the Radiologist at RBM Hospital, Bharatpur has proved the
X-ray plates of Smt. Premlata, Smt. Anju and Shri Rajendra.
Therefore, from the aforesaid evidence, it was established,
beyond reasonable doubt, that Anju Rohilla, Pramila Rohilla and
Rajendra Prasad Rohilla received simple as well as grievous
injuries on account of assault upon them and the injuries to
Pramila Rohilla and Rajendra Prasad Rohilla were opined to be
dangerous to life.
Now the moot question before this Court is whether the
prosecution has been able to connect the appellants with the
aforesaid murder and the attempt to murder of other person.
Genesis of the prosecution case is the parcha bayan (Ex.P1)
made by Anju Rohilla wherein, she has stated that when she was
cleaning the house at about 7.45-8.00 am on 29.07.2010, her
mother-in-law Vidhya Devi and sister-in-law Pramila were at home
and her husband-Giraraj Prasad, brother-in-law-Rajendra Prasad
and father-in-law-Khem Chand were in office situated in the
house. She stated that upon hearing the gunshots, she rushed to
the office and found that her father-in-law and husband were shot
by Paras Ram and Dal Chand with katta (country made pistol). It
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (10 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
was further alleged that Rajendra and other person were shot with
firearm by Praveen and Bablu. It was averred that when her
sister-in-law tried to save her, Praveen also shot her with firearm.
It was also alleged that her mother-in-law was also fired at; but,
she ducked. The allegation of inflicting lathi blows was levelled
against Meera and Vijaya. It was averred that the accused party
had assaulted them due to enmity on account of fire work case as
also on account of dispute over their gali. The complainant, as
PW1, has reiterated the allegations in her examination-in-chief.
With regard to absence of name of Padam Singh @ Pappi in her
parcha bayan, she has explained that he was also known as Bada
Bablu and identified him in the Court. It is worthy to note here
that upon asking by the Court, the appellant-Padam Singh
acknowledged his name as such. Further, she was not cross-
examined at all on this aspect. We also notice that Padam Singh
himself appeared in the witness box as DW7 but, did not claim
that he was not known as Bablu. In view thereof, this Court finds
no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that in the FIR, name of Padam Singh @ Pappi was
absent. Moreover, we also find from the prosecution testimony
that all the 4 sons of Ram Singh were alleged to be involved in the
offence. Indisputably, the appellants and co-accused are brothers
and sons of Ram Singh and none of the prosecution witnesses was
suggested during their cross-examination that Padam Singh @
Pappi was not one of the assailants.
Further, we notice that her deposition as to manner in which
the offence was committed by the appellants remained
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (11 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
unimpeached during her cross examination. Rather, the
suggestions put to her by the defence fortified that there was an
old enmity between the parties and the appellants had a motive to
assault the complainant party. Her testimony does not appear to
be suffering from any improvement or embellishment; rather,
during her cross-examination, she has categorically admitted that
she did not see the first two shots fired at her father-in-law and at
her husband, as also stated so in her parcha bayan. Her testimony
stood corroborated from the deposition of Pramila Rohilla (PW2)
and Rajendra Prasad Rohilla (PW3), the other injured eye
witnesses. It may be pertinent to note here that Rajendra Prasad
Rohilla was present in the office along with his father Khem Chand
and brother Giriraj Prasad when they all were shot at by the
appellants along with co-accused. In his examination-in-chief, he
has described the entire incident in graphic details and his
testimony could not be shaken in the course of his cross
examination. Smt. Vidhya Devi (PW6), the wife of deceased Khem
Chand, has categorically stated that Pappi @ Padam Singh shot a
gunfire upon her but, she ducked and the bullet hit the wall. She
has also alleged that accused Praveen had hit Pramila with a
gunshot and she saw the present appellants with other co-accused
fleeing from the place of incident. Her testimony also remained
unshaken during her cross-examination.
Thus, from the testimony of aforesaid eye witnesses, it was
established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had
entered the house of the complaint party, caused murder of Khem
Chand and Giriraj Prasad with gun shots and also attempted to
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (12 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
murder other person. It is trite law that testimony of the injured
eye witnesses is most creditworthy if found to be free from
suspicion which is the situation obtaining in the instant case.
Although, the prosecution has also examined S/Shri Jamna
Prasad (PW14), Badleram Meena (PW15) and Chandrabhan
Sharma (PW16) as the eye witnesses but, their cross-examination
does not inspire confidence that they have seen the incident but,
from their deposition, it was established that they have seen the
appellants coming out of the place of incident armed with katta
and fleeing on the motorcycles.
In view of aforesaid evidence, we are of the considered view
that the prosecution has been able to establish from the ocular
evidence, which stood corroborated from the medical evidence,
that the appellants have committed murder of Khem Chand and
Giriraj Prasad with multiple gun shots and attempted to murder
Smt. Anju, Smt. Pramila and Shri Rajendra Prasad and the learned
trial court committed no error in recording the findings of their
conviction, as supra.
This Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by learned
counsel for the appellants. We find no delay in registration of FIR.
The incident occurred in the morning of 29.07.2010 wherein, two
family members died at the spot on account of gunshot injuries
and as many as 3 persons were injured including grievous injuries
to two persons which were found to be dangerous to life. From the
evidence available on record, it was established that the injured
person were first taken to the Community Health Centre at
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (13 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
Kaman, thereafter to RBM Hospital at Bharatpur and from there to
the Heritage Hospital at Agra on the same day. Anju Rohilla
(PW1), Pramila Rohilla (PW2) and Rajendra Prasad (PW3) have
stated so in unison in their deposition. Further, Shri Totaram Saini
(PW4)-the Office Clerk in the office of the complainant-party, has
candidly stated that he has reached the scene of incident
immediately thereafter and though, did not witness the occurrence
but, had immediately taken Shri Rajendra Prasad to the Hospital
at Kaman on a motorcycle. Dr. Pramod Bansal (PW11), a Medical
Officer at Community Health Centre, Kaman has also deposed that
at about 8.30 am on 29.07.2010, some persons had brought
Pramila and Rajendra Rohilla to the Hospital and after
administering first aid, they were referred to the Hospital at
Bharatpur on account of their serious condition. He has further
stated that sometime thereafter, the police had brought the dead
bodies of Khem Chand and Giriraj Rohilla and Anju Rohilla was
also brought to the hospital in injured condition and she was also
referred to the Bharatpur Hospital on account of her serious
condition. Dr. Ashok Mathur (PW12) has stated that he has
examined, in between 10.00 am to 11.00 am, all the three injured
in RBM Hospital, Bharatpur. Dr. Devendra Gupta (PW19) has
deposed that Anju Rohilla, Pramila Rohilla and Rajendra Rohilla
were brought to the Heritage Hospital, Agra and he has examined
them from 12.45 pm onwards. Shri Mahesh Kumar (PW21), the
then SHO Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur has deposed
that he received a telephonic message at about 7.30 am on
29.07.2010 that there was firing at the residence of Rajendra
Rohilla, Advocate whereupon, he reached the place of incident and
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (14 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
found two persons dead in the office and the remaining family
members had already left for the hospital for treatment.
Shri Ram Niwas Meena (PW10)-the Chowki In-charge, RBM
Hospital Chowki, Bharatpur has stated that upon receiving
telephonic instruction from the S.P. at about 11.00 am, he had left
for the Heritage Hospital, Agra where he reached at about 7.30
pm and recorded the parcha bayan of Anju at about 8.00 pm. True
it is that both the deceased were Lawyers and the injured
Rajendra Prasad was also a Lawyer but, in view of the gravity of
unfortunate incident which had struck the family, it was but
natural for the family members to have taken care of injured first.
In the backdrop of aforesaid factual scenario, we find no delay
much less inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.
Similarly, we find no substance in the contention of Shri
Rajesh Sharma that delay in recording the Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement of eye witnesses namely; Jamna Prasad (PW14),
Badleram Meena (PW15) and Chandrabhan Sharma (PW16), has
eroded their credibility. As already observed, a Single Bench of
this Court, has vide its order dated 28.03.2011 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Petition No.2472/2010, transferred the
investigation from the State Agency to the CBI pursuant
whereupon, the CBI has taken over the investigation and
registered the FIR No.RCJAIS0014 on 06.04.2011, started
investigation after receiving the original file in FIR No.443/2010
from the Police Station Kaman and recorded the statement of
these witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.04.2011, i.e.,
without any delay.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (15 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
In so far as contention of learned counsel for the appellants
that recovery of only 7 bullets from the place of incident despite
allegation of opening of more gunfire than 7, raises a doubt as to
veracity of the prosecution case is concerned, we find no merit in
it. Besides the 7 bullets recovered from the place of incident, 3
bullets were retrieved from the body of the deceased Giriraj
Prasad and one bullet from the body of the deceased Khem
Chand. From the testimony of Dr. Raj Kumar Choudhary (PW33)-
the Radiologist, it was also reflected that one bullet remained
embedded in the lower abdominal part of the injured Rajendra
Prasad. Thus, the prosecution was able to establish firing of as
many as 12 bullets.
Likewise, submission of learned counsel for the appellants as
to absence of recovery from them creating a doubt as to reliability
of the prosecution case, is devoid of force. Indisputably, the
incident is dated 29.07.2010 and the appellants came to be
arrested as late as on 22.04.2012, i.e., after the lapse of about 1
year and 9 months. After such long lapse of time, absence of
recovery of the weapon of offence from their deposition created no
doubt as to veracity of the prosecution case. Even otherwise, the
allegation against them was of firing the shots from kattas and
from the firearm examination report dated 22.02.2012 (Ex.P93)
furnished by Central Forensic Science Laboratory, upon
examination of the bullets recovered from the place of incident
and from the body of the deceased and the injured, it was found
that they have been fired from .315″ country made firearm and
more than one country made firearms were used in firing these
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (16 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
bullets. Moreover, as already discussed, since, the complicity of
the appellants in the subject offences was well established from
the prosecution evidence especially, the ocular testimony of the
injured eye witnesses which stood medically corroborated, mere
absence of recovery of weapon of offence or for that matter, any
incriminating evidence from them, is rendered of no consequence.
In the conspectus of aforesaid analysis, we find that the
prosecution has been able to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that
the accused-appellants are guilty of charges framed against them
and the judgement impugned warrants no interference.
Though, not argued by any of the learned counsels but, we
have observed a disturbing feature in the judgement impugned
dated 25.07.2018 whereby, the appellants have been convicted
under Section 302 or 302/34 or 302/120B IPC, as also under
Section 307 or 307/34 or 307/120B IPC.
Although, it is permissible under the Code of Criminal
Procedure to frame alternative charges as was done in the instant
case; but not the conviction. The charges were framed against the
appellants under Sections 302 or 302/149 or 302/120B, 307 or
307/149 or 307/120B IPC. It may be worthy to note here that
although the charges were framed under Section 302/149 IPC as
also under Section 307/149 IPC; but, on account of acquittal of
two of the accused person reducing total number of the accused
person in the instant case to 4, instead of Section 149 IPC, the
conviction was recorded with the aid of Section 34 IPC which is
permissible. However, it was not permissible to record conviction
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (17 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
in alternative. The appellants could have been convicted either
under Section 302 simplicitor or under Section 302/34 IPC and
similarly, either under Section 307 or 307/34 IPC and not under
both the provisions. It is trite law that an accused cannot act
both; the sole perpetrator as also a joint perpetrator. However, it
is a well-settled legal principle that the accused can be convicted
under Section 302/34 IPC as also under Section 302/120B
simultaneously inasmuch, while, as the Section 120B pertains to
the planning phase covering criminal conspiracy, the Section 34
deals with the execution phase.
In the instant case, it is established from the evidence on
record that the appellants have trespassed in the house of the
complainant party armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance
of their common intention to cause murder, assaulted the
deceased as also the injured person with gunshots. In the
aforesaid factual backdrop, it can safely be gathered that they had
hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the aforesaid offences
and in furtherance of their common intention, they committed the
same. Furthermore, from the medical evidence available on
record, it was established that death of Khemchand and Giriraj
Prasad was not on account of any single fatal blow rather, was on
account of cumulative effect of the multiple gunshots received by
them. In view thereof, we are of the considered view that the
appellants could not have been convicted under Section 302 IPC
simplicitor.
Section 386(e) of Cr.P.C confers upon the appellate court a
power to make any amendment or any consequential or incidental
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (18 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
order that may be just and proper subject to two provisos
contained thereunder. Since, as already observed, charges against
the appellants were framed in alternative under Sections 302 or
302/149 or 302/120B, 307 or 307/149 or 307/120B, exercising
our power under Section 386(e) Cr.P.C, we deem it just and
proper to alter the conviction of the appellants from Sections 302
or 302/34 or 302/120B and Sections 307 or 307/34 or 307/120B
to Sections 302/34 and 302/120B as also under Sections 307/34
and 307/120B. Since, the charges to that effect were already
framed and the sentences remain unaffected, no prejudice is
caused to the appellants.
The appeal no.397/2018 is dismissed accordingly with
aforesaid modification.
Needless to say that the observation made hereinabove by
this Court are only for the purpose of disposal of the appeal
preferred by the appellants against their conviction and shall not
prejudice the pending trial against the co-accused.
APPEAL NO.450/2018
The appeal no.450/2018 has been preferred by the injured-
complainant Anju Rohilla under Section 378(3) read with Section
372 Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 25.07.2012 whereby,
the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents namely;
Meera Kumari and Vijaya Kumari of the charges framed against
them for offences under Sections 148, 120B, 452, 302, 302/149,
302/120B, 452, 302 or 302/149 or 302/120B, 307 or 307/149 or
307/120B, 323 and 323/149 IPC.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (19 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
The relevant facts have already been narrated in the
judgement passed by D.B. Criminal Appeal No.397/2018 decided
vide this common order and therefore, need no reiteration.
Assailing the judgement, learned senior counsel for the
appellant contended that the allegations against them figured in
the parcha bayan (Ex.P1) itself lodged by the injured eye
witnesses. Further, inviting attention of this Court towards the
deposition of injured eye witnesses namely; Anju Rohilla (PW1),
Pramila Rohilla (PW2) and Rajendra Prasad Rohilla (PW3), he
canvassed that they have categorically stated that the
respondents, along with co-accused, entered their house armed
with lathi as members of an unlawful assembly and inflicted
several blows in furtherance of their common object to commit
murder/attempt to murder. Learned senior counsel contended that
from the statement of the eye witnesses namely; Vidhya Devi
(PW6), Jamna Prasad (PW14) and Badleram Meena (PW15), it was
established that they have seen the respondents coming out of
the house of the deceased with lathis; however, the learned trial
court, has, vide its judgement impugned, acquitted them on the
basis of conjectures and surmises. Learned senior counsel
contended that even assuming that the allegations against them
of inflicting lathi blows were not medically corroborated, being
members of unlawful assembly, even in absence of any overt act,
since the offence of double murder and infliction of life threatening
injuries to various person in furtherance of their common object
was proved, they were liable to be convicted of the charges
framed against them. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (20 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
allowed, the judgement impugned dated 25.07.2018 be quashed
and set aside to the extent of acquittal of the respondents no.1
and 2 and they be convicted of the charges framed against them
and be sentenced accordingly.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor supported the contentions
of the learned senior counsel for the appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2,
opposing the submissions, contended that the learned trial court
has, after careful examination of the evidence available on record,
recorded the findings of their acquittal which warrant no
interference by this Court under its very limited jurisdiction. He,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Heard. Considered.
True it is that in the parcha bayan made by the injured eye
witness Anju Rohilla (PW1), there were allegations against the
respondents of coming to her house, along with co-accused,
armed with lathis and to have inflicted multiple blows to the
complainant party but, the learned trial court has, after meticulous
analysis of the evidence on record, reached to a conclusion of
their non-involvement in the offence. It was held by the learned
trial court that Anju Rohilla (PW1) has though, alleged infliction of
lathi blows by the respondents on the body of her mother-in-law
Vidhya Devi but, she was not subjected to any medical
examination. Smt. Vidhya Devi has also, as PW6, levelled bald and
vague allegations against the respondents of hitting her with the
lathis but, did not specify which part of the body was hit by them.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (21 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
Further, the PW1 has alleged that both the respondents have hit
her on head with lathi but, her injury reports, i.e., Ex.P8 and
Ex.P9, reflect only two injuries; one on her hand and another on
head. While, the head injury was attributed by her to co-accused-
Praveen with gun and another injury on hand was alleged to be on
account of gunshot fired by Praveen. She has also alleged that
they inflicted lathi blow on the person of her father-in-law, but the
same was not medically corroborated. The learned trial court has
also observed that the similar allegations were levelled by Pramila
Rohilla (PW2) as also by Rajendra Rohilla (PW3) but, the same
were also not medically corroborated.
Jamna Prasad (PW14) though, claimed not to have seen the
incident but, has stated that he saw the respondents coming out
of the house of the deceased with lathi. However, during his
cross-examination, he has stated that the part A to B of his police
statement (Ex.D2), to the effect that he did not see the
respondents-the daughters of Ram Singh, was written by the CBI
on its own and he did not make it. Similar averment was made by
Badleram Meena (PW15) in his examination-in-chief but, he has
also denied that the A to B part of his police statement (Ex.D3) to
the effect that he did not see the two respondents coming out of
the house of the deceased, was made by him. Thus, there was
material improvement in their testimony which rendered the same
untrustworthy.
Furthermore, although, Chandrabhan (PW16) has claimed to
have seen the two respondents coming out of the house of
deceased with lathi in their hand and to have gone to the house of
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (22 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
Ram Singh; but, in his cross-examination, he has categorically
admitted that he has weak eye sight (both, near and distant).
In view of aforesaid evidence, it does not inspire confidence
of this Court that the respondents no.1 and 2 were involved in the
alleged offence. In our considered view, the learned trial court did
not err in recording the finding of acquittal of the respondents
no.1 and 2.
Their Lordships have in the case of Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka reported in [(2024) 8
SCC 149], held as under:
“38. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9
SCC 581 this Court summarised the principles governing the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal
against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.PC as follows:
“8. xxx xxx xxx
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 re-appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after re-appreciating 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(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (23 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]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; and
(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.”
Since, we are not convinced that the findings of the learned
trial court, qua acquittal of the respondents no.1 and 2, suffer
from any perversity or, patent illegality or, are based on
misreading of material evidence on record, in the backdrop of
aforesaid precedential law, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the same.
Resultantly, the appeal no.450/2018 is dismissed.
APPEAL NO.330/2023
The appeal no.330/2023 was preferred by the injured victim
Vidhya Devi under Section 372 read with Section 357 Cr.P.C.
against the judgement dated 25.07.2018 seeking capital
punishment for the accused-respondents Dal Chand @ Bablu and
Padam Singh @ Pappi. However, during its pendency, the
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (24 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
appellant expired and her legal representatives were brought on
record.
The relevant facts have already been narrated in the
judgement passed in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.397/2018 decided
vide this common order and therefore, need not be reiterated.
Praying for enhancement of sentence of life imprisonment to
the capital punishment, learned senior counsel for the appellants
submitted that it was a double murder case wherein, a Lawyer of
Kaman, Shri Giriraj Prasad Rohilla and his father were murdered
and deadly assault was made on the other family members
seriously injuring all of them including Advocate Shri Rajendra
Prasad Rohilla. Learned senior counsel submitted that the offence
was committed in broad day light with premeditation. He
submitted that the brutal manner in which the offence was
committed sent a wave of shock in the society and looking to the
nature, gravity and seriousness of the offence, a learned Single
Judge of this Court has transferred the investigation from State
Agency to CBI. Shri Surana further contended that the appellants
remained absconded for a period of almost more than one year
and nine months and remaining two accused have recently been
apprehended after more than 15 years from the date of incident.
He argued that looking to the grave danger to the life of the
Rajendra Prasad Rohilla, he has been extended police protection
by this Court. Praying for enhanced sentence, he drew attention of
this Court towards judgements of their previous conviction. Vide
judgement dated 15.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur Headquarter, Deeg in
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (25 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
Sessions Case No.5/2008, the appellants were convicted under
Sections 323, 452 and 324/149 IPC. He submitted that vide
another judgement dated 10.02.1999, the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nagar, District Bharatpur in Criminal Case
No.144/1996, convicted the appellant-Padam Singh along with
other accused of the offences under Sections 147, 323, 452, 427
and 504 IPC and were given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act. He, however, admitted that a criminal appeal
no.6729/2008 is pending consideration before this Court against
the judgement dated 15.05.2008.
In the aforesaid factual backdrop, he prayed that the
sentenced awarded to the appellants be enhanced to death
penalty.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor prayed for passing the
appropriate order.
Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents,
inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section
372 Cr.P.C., contended that appeal on behest of the victim for
enhancement of sentence is not maintainable. He, in support of
his submissions, relied upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Parvinder Kansal vs. The State of NCT
of Delhi & Ors.-(2020) 19 SCC 496. He, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the appellants,
referring to and relying upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India dated 21.04.2025 passed in the case of Sachin vs.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (26 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
State of Maharashtra-2025 INSC 716, would submit that even if
the appeal is not found to be maintainable, this Court, in suo-
motu exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401
Cr.P.C., can enhance the sentence.
Heard. Considered.
Section 372 Cr.P.C. provides that no appeal shall lie from
any judgeement or order of a criminal court except provided for
by this Code or by any other law in the time being in force.
However, its proviso provides that the victim shall have a right to
prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting
the accused, or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing
inadequate compensation.
Thus, while proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. gives a victim
right to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal or
conviction for a lesser offence or against imposition of inadequate
compensation but, to no appeal for enhancement of the sentence,
a right which has exclusively been conferred upon the State
Government under Section 377 Cr.P.C. For ready reference under
Section 377 (3) Cr.P.C. is quoted hereunder:
“377. Appeal by the State Government against
sentence:
(1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2), the State
Government may in any case of conviction on a trial held by
any Court other than a High Court, direct the Public
prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the
ground of its inadequacy–
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (27 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
(a) to the Court of session, if the sentence is passed by the
Magistrate; and
(b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other
Court”;
(c) in Sub-Section (3), for the words “the High Court”, the
words “the Court of Session or, as the case may be, the High
Court” shall be substituted.
(2)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on
the ground of its inadequacy, the High Court shall not
enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a
reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such
enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may
plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence.”
Thus, from the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it
is apparent that only State has been conferred a right to seek
enhancement of sentence which has been denied to the victim.
Their Lordships in the case of Parvinder Kansal (supra) held as
under:
“A reading of the proviso makes it clear that so far as victim’s
right of appeal is concerned, same is restricted to three
eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused; conviction of
the accused for lesser offence; or for imposing inadequate
compensation. While the victim is given opportunity to prefer
appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but
at the same time there is no provision for appeal by the victim
for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate, whereas
Section 377, Cr.PC gives the power to the State Government
to prefer appeal for enhancement of sentence. While it is open
for the State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate
sentence under Section 377, Cr.PC but similarly no appeal can
be maintained by victim under Section 372, Cr.PC on the
ground of inadequate sentence. It is fairly well settled that the
remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. Unless same is(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (28 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]provided either under Code of Criminal Procedure or by any
other law for the time being in force no appeal, seeking
enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim, is
maintainable. Further we are of the view that the High Court
while referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of
National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr.
(2010) 12 SCC 599 has rightly relied on the same and
dismissed the appeal, as not maintainable.”
In the backdrop of aforesaid authoritative pronouncement,
we are of the considered view that the appeal preferred by the
victim seeking enhancement of sentence is not maintainable and
deserves to be dismissed.
However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, in the
case of Sachin (supra), relying upon the judgement in the case of
Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar vs. State of Maharashtra:
(1977) 3 SCC 25, held that the High Court can suo-motu,
exercising its revisional jurisdiction, enhance the sentence in
appropriate cases and what is an appropriate case, has to be left
to the discretion of the High Court. Thus, still, while dismissing the
appeal preferred by the victim seeking enhancement of the
sentence, this Court can, suo-motu exercising its revisional
jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., consider the issue of
enhancement of sentence. However, such power should be
exercised very strenuously and only in rarest of the rare cases
where the quantum of punishment awarded is so inadequate that
it shakes the conscience of the Court.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (29 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court has, in
the case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
684, held as under:
“209. There are numerous other circumstances justifying the
passing of the lighter sentence; as there are countervailing
circumstances of aggravation. “We cannot obviously feed into
a judicial computer all such situations since they are
astrological imponderables in an imperfect and undulating
society.” Nonetheless, it cannot be overemphasised that the
scope and concept of mitigating factors in the area of death
penalty must receive a liberal and expansive construction by
the courts in accord with the sentencing policy writ large in
Section 354(3). Judges should never be blood-thirsty.
Hedging of murderers has never been too good for them.
Facts and figures, albeit incomplete, furnished by the Union
of India, show that in the past, Courts have inflicted the
extreme penalty with extreme infrequency-a fact which
attests to the caution and compassion which they have
always brought to bear on the exercise of their sentencing
discretion in so grave a matter. It is, therefore, imperative to
voice the concern that courts, aided by the broad illustrative
guidelines indicated by us, will discharge the onerous function
with evermore scrupulous care and humane concern, directed
along the highroad of legislative policy outlined in Section
354(3), viz, that for persons convicted of murder, life
imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. A
real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life
postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s
instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest
of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably
foreclosed.”
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (30 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018]
We do not find the instant case to be a fit case for invoking
the inherent revisional jurisdiction under following mitigating
circumstances.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, in a number of
cases, commuted the sentence of death penalty to life
imprisonment on account of inordinate delay in its execution
whereas, in the instant case, the appellants have already been
awarded life imprisonment. Further, it is a well settled legal
principle that though, double murder is heinous but, number of
victim is not the only criteria for awarding capital punishment. The
incident is almost 16 years old and as on 14.04.2026, the
appellants Padam Singh remained in custody for a period of 15
years, 7 months and 1 day and Dalchand for a period of 15 years,
8 months and 4 days including remission since 22.04.2012 and 13
years 11 months and 25 days by both without remission. Nothing
has been brought to our knowledge which could reflect that their
jail conduct is not satisfactory or that they do not have
reformative tendencies.
In the aforesaid factual context, we do not find it to be the
rarest of rare case wherein, suo-motu exercising its revisional
power, the sentence of life imprisonment should be enhanced to
capital punishment.
Accordingly, the appeal no.330/2023 is dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
RS /53-55
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 04:32:09 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
