Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rajak Khan vs State Of Rajasthan … on 17 March, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:12668-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 299/2025
Rajak Khan S/o Gaffur Khan, Aged About 44 Years, Manghar At
Present Of Jaswantpura Road Bhinmal, Jalore
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Galba Ram S/o Lakha, Khanpur Police Station Bhinmal
District Jalore
3. Smt Hariya Devi W/o Galba Ram, Khanpur Police Station
Bhinmal District Jalore
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Saharan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
17/03/2026
1) The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-complainant under Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 assailing
the validity of judgment dated 04.06.2025 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge Bhinmal, Jalore (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No. 27/2021,
whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-
respondents, namely, – Galba Ram and Hariya Devi from the
offence punishable under Sections 201, 302, 365 of IPC read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2) As per prosecution case, on 16.07.2021 the appellant
submitted a written report before the Station House Officer of
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:42:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:11:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12668-DB] (2 of 9) [CRLAD-299/2025]
Bhinmal Police Station stating therein that on 15.07.2021 his
uncle, namely Barkat Khan had gone for getting his tempo bearing
registration No. RJ-24-PA-947 repaired. However, when Barkat
Khan did not return home till about 3:00 PM, the appellant tried to
contact him on his mobile phone bearing No.9828491583. Though
the phone was ringing, the same remained unanswered. Despite
making all efforts to search for his uncle, the appellant-
complainant could not locate him. During the course of such
search, he found the tempo of his uncle lying abandoned on the
road of Narta village, but Barkat Khan himself was not found
there. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a missing person’s
report (Ex.P/40) at the said police station. Upon making enquiries
from the villagers, the appellant-complainant came to know that
his uncle had spoken with one Govind, who informed that Barkat
Khan would return home by the next day. In such circumstances
and the fact that his uncle had not returned home, the appellant-
complainant suspected that Barkat Khan had been kidnapped.
3) On the basis of the said information, a formal FIR No.
342/2024 (Ex.P/39) was registered at Police Station Bhinmal,
District Jalore for the offences under Sections 365 IPC.
4) After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-
sheet against the accused-respondents for the offence under
Section 365, 302, 201/34 of IPC before the court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal, District Jalore, from where the
case was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge Bhinmal, Jalore for trial.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:42:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:11:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12668-DB] (3 of 9) [CRLAD-299/2025]
5) The learned Trial Court framed, read over, and explained the
charges under Sections 365, 302, 201/34 IPC to the accused-
respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial.
6) During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 24
witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence from Ex.P-1 to
Ex.P-64.
7) The statements of the accused-respondents were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution
allegations, claimed false implication, and asserted their
innocence. The accused-respondents did not lead any evidence in
defence.
8) Learned Trial Court, upon hearing the arguments advanced
on behalf of both sides and after appreciation of the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the accused-
respondents of the charge under Sections 302, 365, 201/34 IPC
vide judgment dated 04.06.2025.
9) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 04.06.2025, the appellant-
complainant has preferred the present Appeal.
10) At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant –
complainant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the
learned trial court is perverse, illegal and contrary to the facts as
well as the material available on record. He, further submits that
the findings recorded by the trial court are unsustainable in the
eyes of law and, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:42:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:11:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12668-DB] (4 of 9) [CRLAD-299/2025]
11) Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant further
submits that the prosecution case stands duly proved by the oral
as well as documentary evidence available on record. It is urged
that the statements of the prosecution witnesses, when read in
conjunction with the documentary evidence produced during trial,
clearly establish the commission of the offences by the accused-
respondents. Despite such evidence, the learned trial court has
committed a grave illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents
of the charges punishable under Sections 365, 302 and 201 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
12) Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that
the learned trial court has committed a manifest error in
discarding the evidence pertaining to the offences alleged. The
complainant and the prosecution witnesses have clearly disclosed
the circumstances of the case and the material available on record
forms a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the
guilt of the respondents. Nevertheless, the learned trial court
erroneously acquitted the accused-respondents of the offences
under Sections 365, 302 and 201/34 IPC.
13) Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant further
submits that the trial court has committed a serious error both in
law as well as on facts in rejecting the ocular evidence of the
appellant-complainant and other prosecution witnesses, along with
the documentary evidence available on record, which clearly
indicated the involvement of the accused-respondents in the
commission of the offences.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:42:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:11:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12668-DB] (5 of 9) [CRLAD-299/2025]
14) Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that
the prosecution had duly proved the charges against the
respondents beyond reasonable doubt. However, the learned trial
court failed to properly appreciate the evidence led by the
prosecution.
15) Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits
that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence
available on record in its correct perspective and has adopted a
selective approach by relying only on those parts of the evidence
which allegedly went against the prosecution case. He further
submits that if the evidence on record is considered in its entirety,
the same clearly establishes the guilt of the accused-respondents.
In such circumstances, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated
04.06.2025 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed
and set aside and the accused-respondents be convicted in
accordance with law
16) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – State has
opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant-
complainant.
17) We have considered the submissions made before this Court
and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case,
including the impugned judgment dated 04.06.2025.
18) Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the appellant-complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor
for the State and upon perusal of the entire material available on
record, this Court proceeds to examine the correctness of the
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:42:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:11:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12668-DB] (6 of 9) [CRLAD-299/2025]
findings recorded by the learned trial court while passing the
judgment of acquittal.
19) It has come on record that the prosecution case rests
essentially on circumstantial evidence. One of the important
circumstances sought to be relied upon by the prosecution is the
recovery of burnt bones from a well and the subsequent report of
the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P/37). However, upon careful
examination of the said report (Ex.P/37), it becomes apparent
that no conclusive opinion could be given to establish that the
bones recovered in a burnt condition were those of the deceased
Barkat Khan. In absence of any reliable scientific evidence
establishing the identity of the remains as that of the deceased –
Barkat Khan, the said circumstance cannot be treated as a
determinative piece of evidence against the accused-respondents.
20) The prosecution has further attempted to attribute motive to
the accused persons by alleging that there existed an illicit
relationship between the deceased Barkat Khan and accused Smt.
Hariya Devi, and that when her husband, accused Galbaram, came
to know about the said relationship, he conspired with his wife to
kidnap Barkat Khan, commit his murder and thereafter burn the
dead body in order to destroy the evidence. In this context,
learned trial court below has rightly relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in
Kour Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2017 (3) CCC
663 (Raj.)(DB), wherein it has been held that in a case based on
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is duty bound to establish
a complete chain of circumstances which unerringly points towards
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:42:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:11:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12668-DB] (7 of 9) [CRLAD-299/2025]
the guilt of the accused. If the chain of circumstances is broken at
any stage, the benefit of doubt must necessarily be extended to
the accused-respondents. The court in aforementioned judgment
further observed that “motive may act as a corroborative factor
but cannot by itself be treated as substantive evidence for
recording a conviction”.
21) Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present
case, even if the prosecution version is accepted for the sake of
argument that an extramarital relationship existed between the
deceased Barkat Khan and accused Smt. Hariya Devi and that
accused Galbaram entertained suspicion on that account, the
record reveals that none of the family members of the deceased,
who were examined before the trial court, have categorically
stated that such an illicit relationship existed between the
deceased and Smt. Hariya Devi. Thus, the alleged motive itself
remains unsubstantiated by reliable evidence.
22) Furthermore, it has come on record that the prosecution has
not been able to produce cogent and convincing evidence
establishing that the accused persons had kidnapped the deceased
Barkat Khan, committed his murder and thereafter destroyed the
evidence of the crime. The circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution do not form a complete chain pointing only towards
the guilt of the accused-respondents and are insufficient to
exclude every hypothesis consistent with their innocence.
23) The other witnesses examined by the prosecution, namely
Naseer Khan (PW-3), Sali Khan (PW-5) and Saddam Khan (PW-7),
as well as the police personnel including Kuparam, Dinesh Kumar,
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:42:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:11:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12668-DB] (8 of 9) [CRLAD-299/2025]
Brahma, Ashok Kumar, Mahendra Singh, Prem Singh, Praveen
Kumar, Bhanwarlal and others, have largely deposed regarding
formal aspects of the investigation. Their statements, by
themselves, do not advance the prosecution case so as to
establish the charges against the accused respondents.
24) It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
standard of proof required in criminal cases is proof beyond
reasonable doubt, as distinguished from civil cases where a matter
may be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In
the present case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls
short of the standard required to record a conviction.
25) In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish a
complete chain of circumstances pointing conclusively towards the
guilt of the accused respondents. The alleged motive has not been
satisfactorily proved, the scientific evidence does not conclusively
establish the identity of the recovered remains as that of the
deceased, and the other evidence produced on record does not
inspire sufficient confidence to hold the accused respondents
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under
Sections 365, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
26) This Court finds that the learned trial court has meticulously
examined the evidence on record and has assigned cogent and
convincing reasons while extending the benefit of doubt to the
accused respondents.
27) Consequently, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of
merit, is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:42:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:11:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12668-DB] (9 of 9) [CRLAD-299/2025]
dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge Bhinmal, Jalore is hereby affirmed.
28) All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
29) Office is directed to send the record of the trial court
forthwith.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
6-Vaibhav/nitin/-
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:42:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:11:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)