Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Krishan Singh (2026:Rj-Jd:16920-Db) on 10 April, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:16920-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 154/2023
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Appellant
Versus
1. Krishan Singh S/o Madan Singh, Dadhavata, Police
Station Ratangarh, District Churu, Presently 10 Dpn
Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh Raj.
2. Dharmaram S/o Andaram, Resident Of Jodhpura, Jod Ki
Dhani Aashpura, Police Station Kuchaman City, District
Nagaur, Raj
3. Girdhari Singh S/o Raghunath Singh, Adopted Son Devi
Singh, Resident Of Chhoti Balod Presently Near Indian
Public School, Fatehpur, P.s. Fatehpur, District Sikar, Raj
4. Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu @ Jhon S/o Murardan, Resident Of
Jodhpura, Jod Ki Dhani Aashpura, Police Station
Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, Raj
5. Hanuman Singh @ Balaji @ Adhitya S/o Jagdish Singh,
Resident Of 14 Dpn Godamedi, District Hanumangarh, Raj
6. Balveer Singh S/o Nand Singh, Resident Of Nimod, Police
Station Moolasar, District Nagaur, Raj
7. Tejpal Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, Resident Of
Kanwarpura, Police Station Sikar Sadar, District Sikar, Raj
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh Rathore, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sharma
Mr. Shiv Singh
Mr. Abhishek Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
10/04/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application
preferred by the State under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 03:48:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16920-DB] (2 of 11) [CRLLA-154/2023]
condonation of delay of 194 days in filing the present criminal
leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the
application filed by the appellant – State for condonation of delay.
3. We have gone through the contentions raised in the
application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4. We note that after the judgment having been passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar on 03.09.2022,
the matter was taken up before the competent authorities and
after getting the due sanction from the said authority, the present
appeal has been filed along with an application for condonation of
delay.
5. We are satisfied that the appellant-State has furnished
sufficient cause for filing the appeal after 194 days. Therefore, the
delay of 194 days in filing the present criminal leave is condoned.
Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
is allowed.
6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the leave
to appeal is being heard today itself.
7. The present criminal leave to appeal has been filed against
the judgment dated 03.09.2022 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar, District Nagaur (hereinafter
referred to as “the learned trial court” ) in Sessions Case No.14/15
(CIS No.19/2015), whereby the accused-respondents, namely,
Dharmaram, Jitendra Singh, Hanuman Singh and Girdhari Singh
have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 148, 149,
323, 302, 120B & 396 of IPC. The accused-respondents Tejpal
Singh and Balveer Singh have been acquitted for the offences
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 03:48:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16920-DB] (3 of 11) [CRLLA-154/2023]
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 396, 302 & 120B of IPC & the
accused-respondent Krishan Singh has been acquitted for the
offfences under Section 148, 149, 323, 302, 120B & 396 of IPC
8. The facts in nutshell emerging from the record are that on
31.10.2014 at about 2:10 PM, the complainant – Narayan Singh
submitted a written report at Police Station, Parbatsar stating inter
alia that on the same day at about 10:00 am, he received a
telephonic call from his son Rajendra Singh, which was made by
one of his colleague, namely, Govind. It was informed that while
Rajendra Singh and Govind were proceeding from Parbatsar
towards Bhavasiya on a motorcycle at about 9:30 am, near
Mandan Nadi, an unknown white vehicle came from behind and hit
their motorcycle, as a result of which, both of them fell down. It is
further stated that when Rajendra Singh objected to the occupants
of the said vehicle, one person sitting in the front seat attempted
to fire at him with a firearm, however, he did not suceed.
Thereafter, two persons, one armed with a gun and the other with
a stick, alighted from the vehicle and chased Rajendra Singh and
Govind, who, out of fear, ran towards the fields. It is alleged that
after chasing them for some distance, the person armed with the
gun fired towards Rajendra Singh from close range, hitting him on
the chest, and thereafter, upon exhortation by the other assailant,
fired another shot, which hit Rajendra Singh on his left arm and as
a result of which, he fell down. It is also alleged that the other
assailant assaulted Govind with a stick, forcibly made him squat
and snatched his cell. As per the report, after the incident, the
assailants fled away in their vehicle. Upon receiving the
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 03:48:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16920-DB] (4 of 11) [CRLLA-154/2023]
information, the complainant reached Parbatsar where Govind
narrated the entire incident to him and stated that he could
identify the assailants. The complainant further stated that due to
previous enmity arising out of a dispute relating to social
interactions during marriage ceremonies, suspicion was created
against Raghunath Singh Shekhawat and his family members,
alleging that they had conspired to commit the murder of his son
Rajendra Singh.
9. On the basis of the said report, an FIR No.225/2014 was
registered at Police Station, Parbatsar, District Nagaur under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 382, 302 of IPC and 3/25 of Arms
Act.
10. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-
sheet for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 395,
302 and 120-B IPC against accused Krishan Singh, while
investigation was kept pending against the remaining accused
persons. Thereafter, supplementary charge-sheets (Titamba
charge-sheets) came to be filed, including charge-sheet No.4A
under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC against accused Girdhari Singh
and under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 395, 302, 120-B of IPC
against accused respondent Dharmaram; charge-sheet No.4B
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 395, 302 and 120-B IPC
against accused Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu @ Jhon and Hanuman
Singh @ Balaji; and charge-sheet No.4C under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 395, 302 and 120-B IPC along with Section 3/25 of the
Arms Act against accused Balveer Singh, Tejpal Singh and Kishore
Singh before the learned Court below. Since the case was triable
by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed and thereafter
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 03:48:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16920-DB] (5 of 11) [CRLLA-154/2023]
transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.01, Parbatsar, District Nagaur for trial.
11. The learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments, framed,
read over and explained the charges to the accused-respondents.
Charges under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 120-B and 396 IPC
were framed against accused Dharmaram, Jitendra Singh,
Hanuman Singh and Girdhari Singh; charges under Sections 147,
148, 149, 323, 396, 302 and 120-B IPC were framed against
accused Tejpal Singh and Balveer Singh; and charges under
Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 120-B and 396 IPC along with
Section 3/27 of the Arms Act were framed against accused
respondnet Krishan singh. The accused-respondents denied the
charges and claimed trial.
12. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 46
witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence from Ex.P-1 to
Ex.P-100 in support of its case.
13. The statements of the accused-respondents, namely Jitendra
Singh, Tejpal Singh, Balveer Singh, Krishna Singh, Hanuman
Singh, Dharamaram and Girdhari Singh, were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein all incriminating circumstances
appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to
them. The accused-respondents denied the said allegations and
stated that the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against
them. The accused persons expressed their desire to lead
evidence in defence; however, they chose not to adduce any
evidence, whereupon the defence evidence was closed.
14. Learned trial court after hearing the arguments advanced by
both sides and upon appreciation of entire evidence available on
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 03:48:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16920-DB] (6 of 11) [CRLLA-154/2023]
record, vide impugned judgment dated 03.09.2022, acquitted the
accused-respondents for the offences mentioned above by
extending the benefit of doubt.
15. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 03.09.2022, the appellant – State has
preferred the present leave to appeal.
16. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State
has assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that
the learned trial Court has committed grave error both on facts as
well as in law in acquitting the accused-respondents. He further
submits that the prosecution has successfully proved its case by
leading cogent and reliable evidence on record, however, the
learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents merely
on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He further submits that
the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse and
contrary to the material available on record.
17. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial
Court has erred in extending benefit of alleged lapses on the part
of the Investigating Agency to the accused-respondents, ignoring
the settled legal position that deficiencies in investigation cannot
be a ground to discard the prosecution story. He submits that PW-
1 Govind Lal, who is an eye-witness to the incident, has supported
the prosecution case and has narrated the entire sequence of
events. He further submits that though the said witness did not
fully support the prosecution case on the aspect of identification of
accused-respondents during trial, but the same was on account of
fear and trauma, which is evident from his conduct, as he was
found weeping during recording of his statement. He submits that
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 03:48:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16920-DB] (7 of 11) [CRLLA-154/2023]
the said witness had identified the accused persons during the test
identification parade and his testimony to the extent it supports
the prosecution case, has been wrongly discarded by the learned
trial Court without assigning any cogent reasons.
18. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the
involvement of the accused-respondents is duly corroborated by
the call detail records and its location, which clearly establish their
presence at or near the place of occurrence at the relevant point
of time. He submits that such electronic evidence stands further
corroborated by the statements of PW-7 Narayan Singh, PW-8
Prem Kanwar and PW-15 Sangram Singh, however, the learned
trial Court has failed to properly appreciate this material aspect of
the matter. He further submits that the identification of accused
Krishan Singh during the test identification parade, recovery
effected at his instance under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and
the reply furnished under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act
with regard to the vehicle involved in the incident, clearly establish
his involvement for commission of the crime, but the learned trial
Court has ignored these vital circumstances.
19. Lastly, He submits that the present case is based on strong
circumstantial evidence coupled with the testimony of an eye-
witness, and the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the
same in its correct perspective. He, therefore, prays that the
impugned judgment may be quashed and set aside and leave to
appeal against acquittal may be granted.
20. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents
vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned Public
Prosecutor for appellant-State and submits that the impugned
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 03:48:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16920-DB] (8 of 11) [CRLLA-154/2023]
judgment dated 03.09.2022 passed by the learned trial court does
not suffer from any infirmity and the accused-respondents have
rightly been acquitted. He, therefore, prays that the present leave
to appeal is devoid of any force and, therefore, the same may be
dismissed.
21. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and
gone through the relevant record of the case including the
impugned judgment dated 03.09.2022.
22. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and have
carefully gone through the impugned judgment as well as the
entire material available on record.
23. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present matter arises
out of a judgment of acquittal and the scope of interference by
this Court in a leave to appeal against acquittal is limited. Unless
the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are found to be
perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly unsustainable in the light of
evidence available on record, this Court would be slow in granting
leave to appeal.
24. The prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of PW-
1 Govindlal, who is the sole eye-witness of the incident. A careful
scrutiny of his deposition reveals that though he has narrated the
occurrence to the extent that an accident took place and
thereafter one person armed with a gun chased and fired at the
deceased Rajendra Singh and another person armed with a stick
assaulted him, however, he has not named or identified any of the
accused persons in the Court. This witness has categorically stated
that he cannot say with certainty as to how many persons were
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 03:48:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16920-DB] (9 of 11) [CRLLA-154/2023]
present in the vehicle and has only stated that two persons chased
them. Thus, the essential ingredients of unlawful assembly have
not been established through his testimony.
25. Further, this witness has been declared hostile and has
specifically deposed that the identification parade was conducted
under coercion and duress by the police. He has denied having
voluntarily identified the accused persons. In such circumstances,
the identification proceedings lost their evidentiary value. It is well
settled that identification in test identification parade is not
substantive piece of evidence and can only be used for the
purpose of corroboration. When the witness himself does not
support the identification in Court, the same cannot be relied upon
to connect the accused with the commission of crime.
26. PW-4 Rajendra singh chandawat, the Executive
Magistrate, who conducted the test identification parade, has
stated in his statements that the witness identified the accused
during the identification parade , but he has admitted in cross-
examination that the witness appeared frightened at that time and
even the signature of the witness is not available on one of the
identification memos. In view of these material discrepancies, this
Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly found
the identification evidence is unreliable.
27. So far as the electronic evidence in the form of call detail
records and its location is concerned, the same also does not
inspire much confidence. The prosecution has failed to establish
that the SIM cards in question were being used by the accused
persons on the fateful day. The SIM cards were issued in the
names of other persons, who have not supported the prosecution
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 03:48:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16920-DB] (10 of 11) [CRLLA-154/2023]
case and have denied having obtained the said SIMs. Neither the
mobile phones nor the SIM cards have been recovered from the
possession of the accused persons. Moreover, the call detail
records have not been proved in accordance with law as no
certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has been
obtained and produced by the prosecution. It has also come in
evidence that some of the relevant mobile numbers were switched
off on the date of the incident. Thus, the learned trial Court has
rightly held that the said evidence cannot be relied upon against
the accused respondents.
28. With regard to the recoveries, the prosecution has relied
upon recovery of a bamboo stick and a Scorpio vehicle. However,
the recovery of the bamboo stick cannot be said to be connected
with the injuries assigned by PW-1 Govindlal, nor any bloodstains
or other incriminating material has been found on it. The place of
recovery is also an open place, which further weakens its
evidentiary value. The alleged weapon of offence, i.e., the firearm,
has not been recovered by the Investigating Agency. In absence of
recovery of the firearm, no link could be established with the
cartridges or the injuries sustained by the deceased.
29. The recovery of the vehicle is also doubtful in view of the
contradictory statements of the witnesses. While PW-25
Ramkishan has stated that the vehicle was taken by the police
from his possession, the Investigating Officer has stated that it
was recovered from the possession of the accused. Further, the
recovery has not been shown to be in pursuance of any
information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 03:48:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16920-DB] (11 of 11) [CRLLA-154/2023]
seizure having been effected from the police station premises
further renders the recovery doubtful.
30. Thus, on an overall appreciation of the evidence, it is evident
that the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution
has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing
unerringly towards the guilt of the accused persons and,
therefore, this Court do not persuade from the submissions
advanced by learned Public Prosecutor to take a view different
from that of taken by the learned trial Court.
31. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we are of the
considered view that the findings recorded by the learned trial
Court do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or infirmity
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction while considering the leave to appeal against acquittal.
32. Consequently, the present Criminal Leave to Appeal filed by
the State is hereby dismissed.
33. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
17-Chandani/Vaibhav/-
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 03:48:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
