Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Komal vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 August, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JP:35616]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 96/2024
CNR: RJHC010039272024 | URN: CRLR / 205U / 2024
Komal D/o Ram Swaroop Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ajitpura,
Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Manoj Kumar S/o Panna Lal Yadav, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Ward No. 28, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shree Dhar Purohit
Mr. Ram Sukh Mali
Mr. Anupam Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Chourhary, PP
Mr. Pankaj Kr. Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
Reserved on: 27/07/2026
Pronounced on: 07/08/2026
1. The present criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the
petitioner assailing the order dated 02.12.2023 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.17/2023 (CIS No.19/2023),
whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the present case are that on
07.04.2017, the nephew of the complainant, namely Pankaj
Kumar, was found in an unconscious condition with injuries on his
person and was initially taken to Sri Ganganagar and thereafter
referred to Jaipur, where he succumbed during treatment. The
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:53:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:57:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35616] (2 of 9) [CRLR-96/2024]
deceased was residing in a rented accommodation along with the
present petitioner and that the petitioner had subsequently
apologized before the complainant’s family, a complaint came to
be submitted before the learned Magistrate, who forwarded the
same for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Consequently,
FIR No.210/2017 came to be registered at Police Station
Suratgarh for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
3. The Investigating Officer, after conducting thorough
investigation in the matter, submitted a negative final report
concluding that no material was available to connect the petitioner
with the alleged offences. Dissatisfied with the said report, the
complainant preferred a protest petition whereupon the learned
trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner and, after
hearing the parties on the question of charge, framed charges
against her for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC by
the impugned order dated 02.12.2023.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present
revision petition before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel submitted that after completing investigation, the
Investigating Officer has submitted a negative final report,
wherein the Investigating Agency itself found no material
warranting prosecution of the petitioner for the offences under
Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the
impugned order has been passed without assigning any cogent
reason for disagreeing with the conclusions arrived at during
investigation.
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:53:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:57:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35616] (3 of 9) [CRLR-96/2024]
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire
prosecution case rests merely upon suspicion and surmises,
without there being any direct or circumstantial evidence
connecting the petitioner with the death of the deceased. Drawing
attention of the Court towards the material collected during
investigation, it was submitted that neither the statements of the
witnesses nor the medical and scientific evidence disclose any
circumstance from which an inference of hitting the deceased on
the head by the petitioner could reasonably be drawn. Adding to
the above submission, learned counsel vehemently contended that
material collected by the investigating agency does not prima
facie satisfy the ingredients of Section 300 so as to frame charge
of the same by the learned trial court. It was also contended that
the medical evidence merely establishes the nature of injuries
sustained by the deceased and does not, by itself, indicate the
manner in which such injuries were caused to the deceased.
6. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court
has failed to appreciate that while framing of charge requires only
a prima facie satisfaction, such satisfaction must nevertheless be
founded upon material sufficient of giving rise to a strong or grave
suspicion against the accused. The impugned order merely records
a conclusion that offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC are
made out, without discussing the evidence collected during
investigation or indicating how such material discloses the
essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It was, therefore,
prayed that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the
petitioner be discharged from the charges framed against her.
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:53:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:57:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35616] (4 of 9) [CRLR-96/2024]
7. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision
petition and supported the impugned order. It was submitted that
at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to
undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. It was also
submitted that the material available on record, taken at its face
value, was sufficient to form a prima facie case against the
petitioner and, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly
framed charges against her. He, thus, prayed that this revision
petition may kindly be dismissed and the trial be continue against
her.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the
material as made available on record.
9. It is settled principle that while considering the question of
charge, the Court is not expected to meticulously appreciate the
evidence or record a finding regarding the guilt or innocence of
the accused. At the same time, it is equally well settled that the
order framing charge cannot be founded upon mere conjectures or
suspicion alone. The material collected during investigation must
disclose sufficient grounds giving rise to a grave suspicion that the
accused has committed the alleged offence. Where the material,
even if accepted at its face value, fails to disclose the essential
ingredients of the offence alleged, the Court would be justified in
discharging the accused rather than subjecting him to an
unnecessary criminal trial.
10. Before examining the material available on record, it would
be apposite to notice the relevant statutory provision. Section 300
of the Indian Penal Code defines ‘murder’ in the following terms:
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:53:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:57:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35616] (5 of 9) [CRLR-96/2024]“300. Murder.- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable
homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done–
(Firstly) — with the intention of causing death; or
(Secondly) — with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the
offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to
whom the harm is caused; or
(Thirdly) — with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person
and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
(Fourthly) — with the knowledge that the act is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.”
Therefore, before a person can be called upon to face a trial
for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the material
available on record must, at least prima facie, disclose the
existence of one or more of the essential ingredients enumerated
under Section 300 IPC.
11. In the opinion of this Court, the material collected during
investigation does not prima facie satisfy any of the ingredients
constituting the offence of murder. There is no material suggesting
that the petitioner acted with the intention of causing the death of
the deceased or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as
she knew to be likely to result in his death. Additionally, there is
nothing on record indicating that the petitioner intentionally
inflicted any bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death or that she committed any act so
imminently dangerous as to attract the fourth clause of Section
300 IPC. The prosecution material is completely silent with regard
to any overt act attributable to the petitioner from which the
requisite intention or knowledge can reasonably be inferred.
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:53:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:57:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35616] (6 of 9) [CRLR-96/2024]
12. Examining the material available on record in the light of the
aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the basic ingredients
necessary to constitute an offence punishable under Section 302
IPC are conspicuously absent. A perusal of the material collected
during investigation and the negative final report dated
10.04.2018 reveals that during the intervening night of
06.04.2017 and 07.04.2017, at around 11:30 P.M., when the
petitioner entered Pankaj’s room, she found him attempting to
commit suicide by hanging himself from the ceiling fan. She
immediately intervened by cutting the dupatta from which he was
hanging, whereupon Pankaj fell head first onto the floor and
sustained injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner herself informed her
acquaintances about the incident and sought immediate
assistance for shifting the injured to the hospital. The investigation
further reveals that the dupatta allegedly used by the deceased
for hanging was recovered from the place of occurrence.
Significantly, despite thorough investigation, no blunt or sharp
weapon allegedly used for causing the head injuries was ever
recovered. The statements of the witnesses who reached the spot
immediately after receiving the petitioner’s call does not reveal
any circumstance suggesting that the petitioner had assaulted the
deceased or attempted to conceal the true nature of the
occurrence. The medical reports/evidence also does not indicate
that the injuries were attributable to any particular weapon or
establish that they had necessarily been inflicted by another
person. After evaluating the entire material, the Investigating
Agency concluded that no material has been recovered during the
course of investigation which connect the petitioner with the
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:53:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:57:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35616] (7 of 9) [CRLR-96/2024]
commission of the alleged offences and accordingly submitted a
negative final report.
This Court is conscious of the fact that such report is not
binding upon the Court and the Court is competent to disagree
with the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Agency. The
learned trial Court, while differing from the conclusions arrived at
during investigation, was expected to independently analyse the
material on record and record reasons indicating as to how the
same disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner. A perusal
of the impugned order, however, does not reveal any such exercise
having been undertaken.
13. Even if the entire material collected during investigation is
accepted at its face value, it does not prima facie disclose either
the actus reus or the requisite mens rea necessary to constitute
the offence of murder. There is no material available on record
suggesting that the petitioner intentionally caused the injuries
sustained by the deceased or that she acted with the intention or
knowledge contemplated under Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The
prosecution has also failed to point out any incriminating
circumstance indicating previous enmity, motive, preparation or
conduct attributable to the petitioner from which such intention or
knowledge could reasonably be inferred. In the absence of any
direct evidence, reliable circumstantial evidence or any chain of
circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the
petitioner, the essential ingredients of Section 302 IPC remain
wholly unsubstantiated even at the threshold stage. Mere
suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute the foundational facts
necessary for framing a charge of murder.
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:53:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:57:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35616] (8 of 9) [CRLR-96/2024]
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has
not been able to point out any material which, if accepted at its
face value, reasonably indicates that the petitioner inflicted the
fatal injuries upon the deceased or had intentionally caused
disappearance of any evidence with a view to escape justice.
15. The medical evidence establishes that the deceased had
sustained serious head injuries, which ultimately proved fatal.
However, the medical opinion is confined to the nature and cause
of the injuries and does not, by itself, indicate the identity of the
assailant or the manner in which such injuries came to be
inflicted; no sharp/blunt weapon has been recovered by the
investigating agency. Similarly, the statements recorded during
investigation and the other material collected by the Investigating
Agency, do not prima facie disclose any circumstance which
unmistakably points towards the complicity of the petitioner in the
commission of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. In
the considered opinion of this Court, the material falls short of
creating the degree of grave suspicion necessary for framing
charges for the aforesaid offences.
16. This Court finds that the impugned order, after noticing the
settled legal principles governing the stage of framing of charge,
proceeds to record a conclusion that offences under Sections 302
and 201 IPC are made out against the petitioner. However, the
order is conspicuously silent as to the material on the basis
whereof such prima facie satisfaction was arrived at. The learned
trial Court has neither analysed the material collected during
investigation nor recorded any reason demonstrating as to how
the same gives rise to a grave suspicion against the petitioner. The
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:53:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:57:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35616] (9 of 9) [CRLR-96/2024]
impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind
and cannot be sustained merely because the allegations relate to
a serious offence.
17. True it is that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is
not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence or record a
finding regarding the probable guilt of the accused. Criminal
prosecution cannot be permitted to continue merely on the basis
of suspicion, howsoever strong it may appear, unless such
suspicion is founded upon legally admissible material giving rise to
a prima facie case. In the facts of the present case, this Court is
unable to persuade itself to hold that the material available on
record satisfies the said requirement.
18. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
learned trial Court was not justified in framing charges against the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201
IPC.
19. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated
02.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.17/2023
(CIS No.19/2023), insofar as it frames charges against the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, is
hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner stands discharged
from the aforesaid offences.
All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
-/TarunG-
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:53:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:57:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
