Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jitendra Singh vs Sundra Bai (2026:Rj-Jd:16151-Db) on 8 April, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:16151-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 219/2025
Jitendra Singh S/o Jarnel Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Resident
Of 12P (Dhani), Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through PP
2. Sundra Bai D/o Roop Singh, Resident Of Chak No. 12-P
Dhani, Police Station Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
3. Sukha Devi D/o Roop Singh, Resident Of Chak No. 12-P
Dhani, Police Station Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
4. Karmjeet Kaur @ Parvindra Kaur Spouse/o Mangal Singh
@ Manjeet Singh, Resident Of Chak No. 12-P Dhani,
Police Station Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.V. Vyas
Mr. Shubham Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary for
Mr. Anada Ram Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
08/04/2026
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
Appellant-complainant (Jitendra singh) under Section 372 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated
27.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2,
Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as “the
learned trial court”) in Sessions Case No.14/2021 (CIS No.
15/2019), titled as State vs. Jagjeet Singh & Others, whereby the
learned trial court has convicted the accused Jagjeet Singh and
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 11:30:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 08:55:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16151-DB] (2 of 9) [CRLAD-219/2025]
Manjeet Singh @ Mangal Singh, but acquitted the present
accused-respondents namely 1. Sundra Bai, 2. Sukha Devi and 3.
Karmjeet kaur @ Parvinder kaur from the charges under Sections
147, 148, 307/149, 323/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 27.04.2019, a written report
was submitted by the complainant, Jitendra Singh before the
Station House Officer, Police Station Anupgarh, stating inter alia
that agricultural land measuring 8.25 bighas situated in Chak 12 P,
held under a Muchalka khata, stands recorded in the names of his
father, Jarnail Singh, his uncle Gurnam Singh and his elder uncle
Roop Singh (since deceased), and that they have been in
continuous possession thereof for the last about 28 years. It was
alleged that Manjeet Singh and Jagjeet Singh, sons of late Roop
Singh, who reside in a Dhani adjacent to that of the complainant,
were attempting to forcibly take possession of the said land and
their Dhani, and had been persistently harassing them and picking
up quarrels in respect of a house constructed by the complainant
on his share about 20 years ago. It was further stated that on the
said date at about 10:00 AM, upon hearing noise from the room
where fodder (tudi) was stored, his father Jarnail Singh came out
and saw that Jagjeet Singh was armed with a sharp-edged kapa,
Manjeet Singh was carrying a kasiya, and Sundrabai, Sukhbai and
Karmjeet kaur @ Parvinder kaur (wife of Manjeet Singh) were
armed with iron rods and lathis, and all of them were attempting
to break open the lock of the fodder room(tudi). When Jarnail
Singh objected, Manjeet Singh and Jagjeet Singh allegedly
attacked him with their respective weapons with an intention to
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 11:30:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 08:55:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16151-DB] (3 of 9) [CRLAD-219/2025]
cause his death, while the other co-accused also assaulted him
with iron rods and lathis. On hearing the commotion, Jaswinder
Kaur, wife of the complainant, reached at the place of occurrence,
whereupon she too was assaulted and knocked to the ground. The
complainant, upon coming out, saw the accused persons
assaulting Jarnail Singh and Jaswinder Kaur and when he
intervened to rescue them, he was also attacked by the accused
persons. It was alleged that Jarnail Singh and Jaswinder Kaur
sustained grievous injuries, particularly on the head, and became
unconscious. Believing them to be dead, the accused persons fled
from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the complainant called
the 108 ambulance service and shifted the injured to the
Government Hospital, from where, owing to the critical condition
of Jarnail Singh, he was referred to Sri Ganganagar. He was taken
to the Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar and thereafter
admitted to a private hospital, where, at about 4:30 PM,
information was received that Jarnail Singh had succumbed to his
injuries during the course of treatment. It was thus alleged that
the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly and acting in
furtherance of their common object, trespassed into their
premises and inflicted life-threatening injuries with sharp-edged
weapons, resulting into the death of Jarnail Singh.
3. On the basis of the written report, FIR No.220/2019 came to
be registered for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 147,
148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was
commenced.
4. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against all the accused persons for the offences under Sections
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 11:30:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 08:55:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16151-DB] (4 of 9) [CRLAD-219/2025]
302, 307, 323, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code before
the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh,
from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and
subsequently transferred to the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Anupgarh for trial.
5. The learned trial court, after hearing arguments on charge,
framed, read over and explained the charges under Sections 147,
148, 307/149, 323/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code to
the accused persons, who denied the same and claimed trial.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 20 witnesses and exhibited documents from Ex.P 1 to Ex.P 73
in support of its case.
7. Thereafter, statements of the accused-persons were
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
wherein they denied the allegations and claimed false implication
on account of enmity. In defence, the accused examined DW-1
Gurnam Singh and exhibited documents from Ex.D 1 to Ex.D 9.
8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and after
appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial
court, vide judgment dated 27.03.2025, convicted accused Jagjeet
Singh for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian
Penal Code and accused Manjeet Singh @ Mangal Singh for the
offences under Sections 302, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code; however, the present accused-respondents were acquitted
of the charges levelled against them.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment dated 27.03.2025 to the extent it acquits the accused-
respondents, namely 1. Sundra Bai, 2. Sukha Devi and 3.
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 11:30:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 08:55:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16151-DB] (5 of 9) [CRLAD-219/2025]
Karmjeet kaur @ Parvinder kaur the appellant-complaninant
(Jitendra singh) has preferred the present appeal before this
Court.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that
the learned trial court has committed an error while passing the
order dated 27.03.2025, whereby the accused-respondents have
been acquitted from the charges leveled against them. He further
submits that despite there being cogent and credible evidence
against the accused-respondents, the learned trial court has
passed an order of acquittal against the accused-respondents.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant further
submits that even as per the testimony of PW-1 – Jitendra Singh,
PW-7 – Jaswinder Kaur and PW-8 – Manjeet Kaur injuries were
attributed to the accused-respondents, despite that learned trial
court has passed an order of acquittal. Learned counsel also
submits that the complainant and the accused persons were
labours and on account of taking possession of some portion of
their land, the accused party inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased
Jarnail Singh. The injuries sustained by Jarnail Singh are
corroborated by the medical evidence.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that
the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that all the accused
persons, forming an unlawful assembly and sharing a common
intention, were armed with deadly weapons and participated in the
commission of the offence, thereby attracting the provisions of
Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In such
circumstances, each member of the unlawful assembly is
vicariously liable for the acts committed in prosecution of the
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 11:30:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 08:55:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16151-DB] (6 of 9) [CRLAD-219/2025]
common object. However, this vital aspect has not been
considered by the learned trial court.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that
the presence of the accused-respondents at the place of incident
is proved as per the prosecution evidence and despite that, the
learned trial court has passed an order of acquittal against the
respondents. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal may be
allowed and the accused-respondents may be convicted for the
offence under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents
submits that the learned trial court has taken into consideration
the entire evidence brought on record and has rightly analyzed the
same while recording the order of acquittal against the accused-
respondents. He further submits that no interference is warranted
in the order passed by the trial court.
15. We have considered the submissions made before this Court
and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case,
including the impugned judgment dated 27.03.2025.
16. At the outset, it is noticed that the complainant’s witnesses,
namely PW-01 Jitendra Singh, PW-07 Jaswinder Kaur and PW-08
Manjit Kaur, have denied the existence of any prior dispute with
the present accused-respondents. However, a perusal of the
written report (Ex.P-1), submitted by PW-01 Jitendra Singh
himself, clearly reveals that there existed a pre-existing dispute
between the parties relating to land and possession over a dhani.
The said report specifically records allegations that the accused
persons intended to encroach upon the land and had been
frequently picking quarrels. This aspect is further fortified by the
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 11:30:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 08:55:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16151-DB] (7 of 9) [CRLAD-219/2025]
admission of PW-08 Manjit Kaur in her cross-examination, wherein
she acknowledged the contents of her police statement (Ex.D-3)
indicating a dispute between her family and the sons of Roop
Singh over land and a room. The Investigating Officer, PW-20
Vijay Kumar, has also admitted during cross-examination that the
investigation revealed a pre-existing dispute regarding partition of
land between the parties.
17. Thus, it stands established that there was prior enmity
between the parties. However, it is a settled proposition of law
that enmity is a double-edged weapon, which may furnish a
motive for the crime as well as for false implication. In Rama
Shish Rai vs. Jagdish (AIR 2005 SC 335), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that in cases involving prior enmity, the
evidence of witnesses is required to be scrutinized with greater
caution.
18. In the present case, PW-01 Jitendra Singh and PW-07
Jaswinder Kaur are injured eyewitnesses. The law accords a
special evidentiary value to the testimony of injured witnesses, as
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baleshwar Mahto & Ors.
vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2017 SC 873), on the premise that
their presence at the scene stands established. Upon careful
examination of the record, it emerges that both these witnesses
have consistently and categorically attributed specific overt acts to
accused Jagjeet Singh and Manjeet Singh @ Mangal Singh, stating
that they inflicted blows on the head of the deceased Jarnail Singh
with sharp-edged weapons, namely a kapa and a kasiya. Their
testimonies on this aspect have remained unshaken during cross-
examination and inspire confidence.
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 11:30:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 08:55:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16151-DB] (8 of 9) [CRLAD-219/2025]
19. The medical evidence lends substantial corroboration to the
aforesaid version. PW-12 Dr. Gurpreet Singh and PW-13 Dr. M.L.
Gupta have proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-23), which
establishes that the deceased sustained two grievous head injuries
caused by sharp-edged weapons, leading to hemorrhagic shock
and coma, resulting in death. Similarly, the injury report of PW-07
Jaswinder Kaur corroborates that she sustained a head injury by a
sharp-edged weapon. The recoveries effected at the instance of
accused Jagjeet Singh and Manjeet Singh @ Mangal Singh under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, duly proved by the prosecution
witnesses, further strengthen the prosecution case against them.
20. However, insofar as the role attributed to the accused-
respondents, namely Sundara Bai, Sukhadevi and Karamjit Kaur @
Parvinder Kaur, is concerned, this Court finds material
discrepancies and lack of corroboration with regard to their cases.
Though PW-01 and PW-07 have sought to assign overt acts to the
said accused persons in their examination-in-chief, but their
versions stand contradicted by their own previous statements
recorded during investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
Moreover so, a perusal of the postmoterm as well as the injury
report do not not indicate that any injury was sustained either by
the deceased or by the injured witness Jaswinder Kaur by blunt
weapons (lathi/iron rods). No recovery of any stick, rod or similar
weapon has been effected from the said present accused-
respondents.
21. Further, the cross-examination of PW-07 Jaswinder Kaur
reveals contradictions with reference to her police statement
(Ex.D-2), wherein it is indicated that the said female accused
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 11:30:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 08:55:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16151-DB] (9 of 9) [CRLAD-219/2025]
arrived at the scene of occurrence after the deceased had already
fallen down. This creates a serious doubt regarding their presence
at the inception of the incident and the prosecution version of
their participation as members of an unlawful assembly sharing a
common object.
22. In view of the admitted enmity between the parties, the
delay in lodging the FIR, and the absence of corroborative
evidence regarding the role of the said accused-respondents, the
possibility of their false implication cannot be ruled out. It is a
settled principle that where two views are possible, the one
favourable to the accused must be adopted. The prosecution is
required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any
reasonable doubt must enure to the benefit of the accused-
respondents.
23. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
findings recorded by the learned trial court in acquitting the
aforesaid accused-respondents do not suffer from any illegality,
perversity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The
acquittal of the accused-respondents is thus liable to be upheld.
24. Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the appellant-
complainant is devoid of force and the same is hereby rejected.
25. Office is directed to send the record forthwith.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
21-Kartik Dave/Payal/-
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 11:30:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 08:55:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
