Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Premlal on 14 July, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Murder Reference No. 4/2025
CNR: RJHC011160182025
URN: MREF / 4U / 2025
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Petitioner
Versus
Premlal, S/o Nawa, Age Major, R/o Nedach, P.s. Khamnore,
District Rajsamand (Raj)
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.27/l2026
CNR: RJHC010047832026
URN: CRLD / 63U / 2026
Premlal, S/o Nawa, Age Major, R/o Nedach, P.s. Khamnore,
District Rajsamand (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG for the State
Mr. Gaurav Singh, for the accused
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
Reportable
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)
1. Date of conclusion of argument 09.07.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was 09.07.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
operative part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 14.07.2026
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (2 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
1. By the impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2025,
passed in Sessions Case No. 30/2023, the Learned Additional
District and Session Judge, Mavli, Udaipur (referred to
hereinafter as “the Trial Court”), in the case of State of
Rajasthan vs. Premlal, convicted and sentenced the accused-
appellant as under :-
302 IPC Death Penalty, with a In default of payment of
Fine of Rs.50,000/- fine to further undergo one
year Additional Rigorous
Imprisonment.
2. Death Reference No.04/2025 has been submitted by the Trial
Court under Section 366 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation of the
capital punishment awarded to accused-appellant Premlal.
Appeal No. 27/2026 has been preferred by accused/appellant
Premlal assailing the impugned judgment.
3. As the Death Reference as well as Appeal both arise out of the
same judgment and order, they have been heard and are being
decided together.
Factual Aspects:
4. Facts relevant for adjudication of the present case are that on
14.01.2023, complainant Bhagga submitted a written report at
Police Station Ghasa, District Udaipur, alleging that his
daughter, Nima, had been married about seven years earlier to
accused-appellant Premlal in accordance with the customs
prevailing in their community. After marriage, Nima resided at
her matrimonial home and was blessed with one son and one
daughter. It was alleged that about one year prior to the
incident, accused-appellant Premlal had contracted a second
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (3 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
marriage (Nata marriage) with Shanta. Aggrieved by the
conduct of her husband, Nima left her matrimonial home along
with her two children and started residing with her parents at
Village Negadia, where she sustained herself by working as a
labourer in the neighbouring villages. The complainant further
alleged that on 12.01.2023 at about 7:30 a.m., accused-
appellant Premlal telephonically contacted Nima and informed
her that he had reached Ghoda Ghati, asking her to come
there. Though Nima initially expressed her reluctance on the
ground that it was too early in the morning, she subsequently
left her parental home at about 8:00 a.m. carrying a tiffin of
food and proceeded towards the Negadia bus stand. At about
10:00 a.m., the complainant’s grandson, Raju, attempted to
contact Nima on her mobile number 9079097729, but her
mobile phone was found switched off. It was also alleged that
the mobile phone of accused-appellant Premlal remained
switched off thereafter. Since Nima did not return home for two
days, the complainant approached Police Station Delwada for
lodging a missing person report. While he was present there,
the police informed him that information had been received
regarding the recovery of a woman’s dead body lying in a field
near Village Sindhu. The complainant, accompanied by one
China, proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he
identified the deceased as his daughter, Nima. According to the
complainant, injuries were visible on her face and head, which
appeared to have been caused by a stone. Suspecting that
accused-appellant Premlal had deceitfully called Nima to the
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (4 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
place of occurrence and thereafter murdered her by inflicting
stone blows on her head and face.
5. On the basis of the said report, a case bearing FIR No. 9/2023
came to be registered at Police Station Ghasa, Udaipur for the
offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet
against the accused – appellant for the offence under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, Udaipur from where the case was
committed for trial to the learned Session Judge, Udaipur and
latter the matter was transferred to Additional District and
Session Judge, Mavli, Udaipur for trial.
7. Learned trial court, after hearing arguments on charge, framed,
read over and explained the charges under Section 302, to the
accused-appellant, who denied the same and claimed trial.
8. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 23
witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced
documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-34 in support of its
case; whereafter the prosecution evidence was closed.
9. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution
allegations in toto and claimed to be innocent, in defence, the
accused-appellant not examined any witness.
10. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on
behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (5 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
302 and sentenced him vide judgment dated 08.12.2025, as
mentioned hereinabove.
11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, the
accused-appellant has preferred the present appeal before this
Court whereas the trial court has sent the matter before this
Court for confirmation of the death sentence and therefore, the
murder reference has been registered.
Submission on Behalf of Accused/Appellant:
12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant,
while assailing the impugned judgment, vehemently submitted
that the judgment dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned trial
court is contrary to the evidence available on record and,
therefore, the same is unsustainable in the eye of law and
deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court.
13. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court failed to
appreciate the prosecution evidence in its correct perspective
and ignored the inherent inconsistencies and infirmities
appearing on record. It was argued that the prosecution has
failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt and, therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained.
14. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant further submitted
that there is no direct, reliable or cogent evidence connecting
the accused-appellant with the commission of the alleged
offence. According to learned counsel, the prosecution evidence
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (6 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
is wholly insufficient and does not inspire confidence so as to
warrant conviction of the appellant.
15. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court gravely
erred in treating the present case as falling within the “rarest of
rare” category. He Further submitted that although the learned
trial Court extracted and relied upon the principles laid down in
the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bachan Singh,
Machhi Singh and other subsequent judgments, it failed to
satisfy the constitutional requirement that life imprisonment is
the rule and death sentence is an exception to be imposed only
when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.
According to learned counsel, no reasons have been assigned
demonstrating why life imprisonment would be wholly adequate
in the facts of the present case.
16. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that while
the learned trial Court extensively considered the alleged
aggravating circumstances, namely the matrimonial relationship
between the parties, alleged premeditation, commission of the
offence at an isolated place and use of stones, it failed to
adequately consider the mitigating circumstances relating to
the accused appellant, including his age, absence of any
previous criminal antecedents, family responsibilities, socio-
economic background, possibility of reform and rehabilitation
and the fact that the incident allegedly arose out of matrimonial
discord rather than constituting a crime affecting society at
large. He further submitted that sentencing exercise mandated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court requires balancing both
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (7 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, which exercise has
not been undertaken.
17. Learned counsel further argued that the learned trial Court has
placed undue emphasis upon the alleged deception practised
upon the deceased, breach of marital trust and the need to
send a strong deterrent message to society while awarding the
death penalty. He also submitted that moral indignation, public
outrage or generalized notions of deterrence cannot substitute
individualized sentencing, which is the governing principle in
capital punishment jurisprudence. He submitted that the
learned trial Court erroneously equated the brutal manner of
commission of the offence with the “rarest of rare” doctrine
without examining whether the appellant could still be
considered capable of reform and rehabilitation.
18. Learned Counsel also submitted that neither the prosecution led
any evidence nor did the learned trial Court undertake any
meaningful inquiry regarding the appellant’s likelihood of
committing future offences or his prospects of reformation and
rehabilitation. In the absence of such material, it was argued
that the presumption ought to favour imposition of life
imprisonment rather than the irreversible sentence of death.
19. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire prosecution
case rests upon circumstantial evidence, principally comprising
the last seen circumstance, call detail records, medical evidence
and the site inspection. It was submitted that in cases based
exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, the possibility of error
cannot be completely ruled out and, therefore, imposition of the
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (8 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
extreme penalty of death is wholly unwarranted. He also
submitted that even the precedents relied upon by the learned
trial Court regarding the last seen theory emphasize the
necessity of careful scrutiny and corroboration before drawing
an inference of guilt.
20. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
alternatively submitted that the learned trial Court failed to
examine whether the ends of justice could have been
adequately served by imposing life imprisonment or a sentence
of life imprisonment for a specified term without remission
before resorting to the irreversible punishment of death. He
submitted that failure to consider such alternative sentencing
options vitiates the order awarding capital punishment.
21. Learned Counsel further submitted that the finding recorded by
the learned trial Court that the deceased remained in the
exclusive company or domination of the accused-appellant at
the place of occurrence is founded merely on conjectures drawn
from the site plan (Exhibit P-3) and not upon any independent
and reliable evidence. He also submitted that no recovery under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act connecting the accused-
appellant with the alleged weapon of offence or any blood-
stained article has been proved and, therefore, the chain of
circumstances remains incomplete.
22. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court
failed to properly appreciate the defence case regarding the
existence of prior matrimonial discord, separation between the
spouses and efforts at reconciliation. According to learned
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (9 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
counsel, these circumstances make it reasonably possible that
the deceased may have left or met with harm in circumstances
not exclusively attributable to the appellant. He, therefore,
submitted that where two views are reasonably possible on the
evidence available on record, the one favourable to the accused
ought to have been adopted. Consequently, it was prayed that
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be
set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges.
23. In the alternative, learned Counsel submitted that even
assuming for the sake of arguments that the conviction to be
justified, the present case does not fall within the category of
“rarest of rare” cases and, therefore, the sentence of death
deserves to be commuted to life imprisonment.
24. E-converso, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Deepak
Choudhary has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced
on behalf of learned Counsel for the accused-appellant and has
supported the findings recorded by the learned trial court. He
further submitted that the impugned judgment dated
8.12.2025 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and
that the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence
under Section 302 IPC has been rightly recorded on the basis of
reliable and cogent evidence available on record.
Discussion & Analysis:
25. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
have carefully re-appreciated the entire oral as well as
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (10 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]documentary evidence available on record including the
impugned order dated 8.12.2025.
Consideration of Testimonies:
26. At the very outset, the First Information Report (Ex.P-1),
though naming the accused-appellant Premlal, does not inspire
complete confidence, but the fact of the matter remains that
PW-1 Bhagga, the complainant and father of the deceased, has
categorically admitted during cross-examination that he is an
illiterate person and only knows how to sign. He specifically
deposed that Ex.P-1 was written by the police official of Police
Station Delwara and the contents thereof were never read over
or explained to him before obtaining his signatures. More
importantly, he admitted that had the police not informed him
that Premlal had committed the murder, he himself would not
have known that the accused-appellant was responsible. Such
an admission strikes at the very root of the prosecution case
because it demonstrates that the implication of the accused-
appellant in the FIR was not based upon the complainant’s
personal knowledge, but upon information allegedly supplied by
the police. Consequently, PW-1 emerges merely as a hearsay
witness regarding the involvement of the accused-appellant and
not as a witness possessing direct knowledge of the occurrence.
27. The evidence further reveals that despite the deceased
allegedly remaining missing from 12.01.2023 till recovery of
her dead body on 15.01.2023, no missing person report was
lodged. Neither the prosecution nor the Investigating Officers
have offered any satisfactory explanation for this conspicuous
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (11 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
omission. PW-23 Ajay Singh candidly admitted that he did not
even investigate whether any missing report had been lodged
before the competent police station. Such unexplained inaction
assumes significance because the deceased was allegedly
missing for nearly three days, yet no immediate legal steps
were taken by her family members. This circumstance
materially weakens the prosecution story and creates doubt
regarding the sequence of events narrated subsequently.
28. The prosecution has sought to establish the guilt of the
accused-appellant principally through the theory of “last seen
together”. However, the evidence adduced in support thereof is
wholly unreliable and suffers from serious infirmities.
29. The testimony of PW-10 Tulsiram, on careful scrutiny, does not
inspire confidence and falls short of the standard required for
establishing the “last seen together” circumstance. Although
the witness claimed that he had seen the deceased Nima
leaving with the accused-appellant Premlal on a motorcycle, his
own admissions made during cross-examination render his
version highly doubtful and unreliable. He admitted that despite
allegedly witnessing such an important circumstance, he
neither informed the police immediately nor disclosed this fact
when the deceased did not return home. According to him, he
merely informed PW-1 Bhagga that Nima had left with Premlal
and even attempted to contact both Nima and the accused-
appellant over the telephone, but as both calls remained
unanswered, neither he nor the family members considered it
appropriate to lodge an immediate report with the police,
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (12 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
despite the deceased remaining untraceable throughout the
night. Such conduct is wholly unnatural and inconsistent with
the behaviour expected of a close relative who claims to have
been the last person to see the deceased alive in the company
of the accused.
30. More importantly, PW-10 admitted that when he visited the
police station on the very next day after the recovery of the
dead body and remained present during the investigation, he
did not disclose to the Investigating Officer that he had seen
the deceased leaving with the accused-appellant. He further
admitted that even when he was called to the police station on
subsequent occasions, including when the motorcycle was
identified and when his signatures were obtained on various
documents, he still did not reveal this alleged “last seen” fact.
Significantly, he acknowledged that even after twenty days of
the incident, the police neither recorded his statement nor
visited his house for interrogation. His attention was specifically
drawn to his police statement (Exhibit D-2), wherein the
relevant portion regarding the deceased leaving with the
accused-appellant was found absent, and the witness refused to
acknowledge the suggested contents. Thus, the prosecution has
failed to furnish any plausible explanation for the inordinate
delay of nearly fifteen to twenty days in recording the
statement of a witness who is projected as the principal witness
of the “last seen together” theory.
31. The aforesaid infirmity assumes greater significance in view of
the categorical admission made by PW-21 Phaliram, the
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (13 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
Investigating Officer, that the statements of PW-10 Tulsiram
and PW-12 Jamnalal were indeed recorded after a delay of
about fifteen to twenty days and that no explanation for such
delay finds place in the case diary or any other investigation
record. He further admitted that despite treating these
witnesses as material witnesses, their statements were not
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. In
the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the
extraordinary delay in recording their statements, coupled with
the unnatural conduct of PW-10 in withholding such a vital fact
despite repeated opportunities to disclose it, the possibility of
subsequent embellishment or improvement cannot be ruled
out. Consequently, the testimony of PW-10 Tulsiram does not
inspire the confidence of this Court and cannot safely be relied
upon for establishing the crucial circumstance of “last seen
together”, which constitutes the very foundation of the
prosecution case.
32. Similarly, the statements of PW-12 Jamnalal also suffers from
the same infirmity. Although he claims to have seen the
deceased and the accused-appellant together, he admitted that
he never followed them, did not know where they went, did not
accompany them and had no knowledge whether they
proceeded towards the place where the body was ultimately
recovered. His statement also came to be recorded nearly one
month after the incident. The witness himself admitted that he
merely saw them riding together without knowing their
destination. Thus, even if accepted in its entirety, his testimony
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (14 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
merely establishes that the deceased and the accused-appellant
were together at some point of time and not that the accused-
appellant continued to remain in her company till the time of
death. Such evidence falls far short of the strict standard
required for application of the last seen doctrine.
33. The prosecution case suffers from another fatal infirmity. PW-23
Ajay Singh, the first Investigating Officer, categorically admitted
that during the course of his investigation no fact whatsoever
came to light indicating with whom the deceased was last seen
prior to her death. He further admitted that complainant
Bhagga never disclosed before him that any person had seen
the deceased leaving with the accused-appellant. These
admissions completely demolish the subsequent version
introduced by PW-10 and PW-12 after considerable delay.
34. The testimony of PW-11 Dali Bai, the mother of the deceased,
also fails to lend any support to the prosecution case with
regard to the circumstance of “last seen together”. A careful
appreciation of her evidence reveals that she is not an
eyewitness to any material fact connected with the alleged
occurrence. During her cross-examination, she categorically
admitted that the accused-appellant Premlal had not come to
her house on the relevant day and that she herself had never
spoken to him over the telephone. According to her own
version, she was not in possession of any mobile phone and the
alleged call was received on her daughter’s mobile phone. She
further admitted that she did not know from which mobile
number the call had been made and had never personally
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (15 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
spoken to the caller. Thus, even the alleged telephonic
conversation attributed to the accused-appellant remains
unsubstantiated through her own testimony.
35. More significantly, PW-11 unequivocally admitted that she had
neither witnessed the deceased leaving the house with the
accused-appellant nor seen them together at any point of time.
She stated that when her daughter left the house, she did not
even inquire where she was going. She further admitted that
she had not seen the alleged incident and had no personal
knowledge of the deceased accompanying the accused-
appellant. When questioned regarding the alleged “last seen”
circumstance, she candidly stated that it was other persons
who had allegedly seen Nima and Premlal together, but she
neither knew the names of those persons nor could she identify
them. She merely stated that PW-10 Tulsiram had seen them
together. Thus, her entire testimony regarding the deceased
having left with the accused is admittedly based upon
information received from others and not upon her own
personal knowledge. Such evidence is purely hearsay in nature
and is legally incapable of proving or corroborating the
prosecution’s “last seen together” theory.
36. Another significant aspect emerging from her cross-
examination is that her statement was never recorded during
the course of investigation. She specifically admitted that
although she was called to the police station, the Investigating
Officer neither interrogated her nor recorded her statement.
She further admitted that even fifteen days after the incident,
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (16 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
no statement was recorded and she did not disclose any facts
to the police. This omission on the part of the investigating
agency assumes considerable significance because PW-11 is the
mother of the deceased and was a natural witness. Had she
been aware of any incriminating circumstance against the
accused-appellant, the Investigating Officer would ordinarily
have recorded her statement at the earliest opportunity. The
failure to do so materially weakens the prosecution case.
37. Her testimony also reveals that the matrimonial relationship
between the deceased and the accused-appellant was not free
from complexities. She admitted that although the parties had
obtained a divorce before the incident at Police Station Delwara,
a subsequent compromise had been executed before the
Nathdwara Court and the relevant documents had also been
furnished to the police. This admission substantially dilutes the
prosecution’s attempt to establish a continuing matrimonial
discord as the motive for the alleged offence.
38. In view of the aforesaid admissions, it is evident that PW-11
Dali Bai is not a witness to the alleged “last seen” circumstance,
nor does she possess any direct knowledge connecting the
accused-appellant with the occurrence. Her evidence, being
entirely hearsay on this crucial aspect and unsupported by any
contemporaneous statement recorded during investigation,
does not furnish any corroboration to the prosecution case.
Consequently, no reliance can safely be placed upon her
testimony for establishing the circumstance that the deceased
was last seen alive in the company of the accused-appellant.
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (17 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
39. The prosecution has also relied upon alleged motive arising
from matrimonial discord between the accused and the
deceased. However, this circumstance also remains unproved.
The evidence of PW-11 Dali Bai clearly reveals that after earlier
disputes there had been reconciliation between the parties.
Neither the alleged woman Shanta nor any other witness was
examined to establish continuation of any extramarital
relationship. No independent evidence has been adduced to
prove that such dispute persisted immediately before the
occurrence. Consequently, the alleged motive remains
speculative and cannot constitute a reliable incriminating
circumstance.
40. The evidence of PW-21 Phaliram and PW-23 Ajay Singh, the
two Investigating Officers, when examined in its entirety,
discloses several material omissions, procedural irregularities
and investigative lapses which strike at the very root of the
prosecution case. Since the present case is founded entirely on
circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain was required to
be established through a fair, impartial and legally sustainable
investigation. However, the admissions made by both the
Investigating Officers during their cross-examination
demonstrate that the investigation suffered from serious
deficiencies, thereby creating substantial doubt regarding the
reliability of the prosecution cases.
41. At the outset, PW-21 Phaliram categorically admitted that
during the course of investigation no eyewitness to the
occurrence came forward. He further admitted that no CCTV
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (18 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
footage could be collected which established that the deceased
Nima was last seen in the company of the accused-appellant
Premlal. This admission assumes considerable significance
because the prosecution has sought to establish the most
crucial circumstance of “last seen together” only through the
testimony of PW-10 Tulsiram and PW-12 Jamnalal. Admittedly,
no independent witness from the bus stand or any public place
was examined although, according to the prosecution itself, the
deceased allegedly left from a busy public place where several
persons were present. The failure of the investigating agency to
collect any independent evidence or electronic evidence in
support of the “last seen” theory materially weakens this vital
circumstance.
42. The credibility of the alleged “last seen” witnesses is further
eroded by the admissions of PW-21 Phaliram. He candidly
admitted that the statements of PW-10 Tulsiram and PW-12
Jamnalal were recorded only after a delay of about fifteen to
twenty days from the date of the incident and that no
explanation whatsoever for such delay is available in the case
diary or any other investigation record. He further admitted
that although these witnesses constituted the foundation of the
prosecution case, their statements were never recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. More importantly,
after recording the statements of these witnesses, he did not
record any supplementary statement of the complainant
Bhagga to verify whether these witnesses had in fact informed
him on the very day that the deceased had left with the
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (19 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
accused-appellant. Such unexplained delay coupled with the
omission to obtain judicial statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
casts a serious cloud upon the authenticity of the alleged “last
seen” evidence and leaves open the possibility of subsequent
improvement or embellishment.
43. The investigation further reveals glaring lapses in collecting
independent evidence. PW-21 admitted that the recoveries
under recovery memos Exhibits P-8, P-9, P-10 and P-11 were
not witnessed by any independent person and that only
subordinate police officials were made witness. He further
admitted that the recovery memos do not record any effort
made by the investigating agency to secure independent
witnesses before conducting the recoveries. It is equally
admitted that neither the Patwari nor the Sarpanch of the
locality was called at the time of the alleged recoveries despite
the place being government land. Such recoveries witnessed by
police officials only without any satisfactory explanation for
non-association of independent witnesses, necessarily require
strict judicial scrutiny and cannot be accepted at their face
value.
44. The procedure adopted while recording the disclosure
statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act also
creates doubt regarding their voluntariness and reliability. PW-
21 categorically admitted that Exhibits P-22 and P-23 are not in
the handwriting of the accused-appellant and that at the time
of recording the alleged disclosure statements no person was
present except himself and the accused-appellant. He further
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (20 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
admitted that whatever information was allegedly furnished by
the accused-appellant was typed by him personally. Thus, the
alleged disclosure statements were recorded in the absence of
any independent witness, and the entire exercise remained
confined to the Investigating Officer and the accused-appellant
alone. Such a procedure falls short of the standard expected in
criminal investigations and diminishes the evidentiary value of
the alleged disclosures.
45. The recoveries allegedly effected pursuant to the disclosure
statements are also surrounded by serious doubts. PW-23 Ajay
Singh, the first Investigating Officer, categorically admitted that
immediately after the occurrence he thoroughly inspected the
place of occurrence with the assistance of the Dog Squad and
FSL team, searched the surrounding area within a radius of
about 100 to 200 metres and seized every blood-stained article
found at the scene. He specifically deposed that no blood-
stained article was left behind at the place of occurrence.
However, PW-21 Phaliram subsequently claimed recovery of a
blood-stained stone and a blood-stained towel (Gamcha) from
substantially the same place at the instance of the accused-
appellant. Significantly, PW-21 himself admitted that Exhibits P-
10 and P-11 relate substantially to the same place, the only
difference being a distance of about ten to fifteen feet between
them, and further admitted that both the stone and towel
(Gamcha) were recovered from the place of occurrence itself.
46. This contradiction assumes considerable importance. If,
according to PW-23 Ajay Singh, the entire place of occurrence
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (21 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
had already been minutely inspected and every blood-stained
article had been seized during the initial investigation, the
subsequent recovery of additional blood-stained articles from
practically the same location pursuant to the disclosure
statement of the accused-appellant becomes highly doubtful.
Such inconsistent versions given by the two Investigating
Officers materially diminish the evidentiary value of the alleged
recoveries and render them unsafe to rely upon.
47. Further doubt arises from the fact that the recovered black
towel (Gamcha) admittedly did not bear any distinctive mark or
identification connecting it with the accused-appellant.
Likewise, PW-21 admitted that no information under Section 27
of the Evidence Act was obtained regarding the use of the
motorcycle allegedly employed in the commission of the
offence. No recovery memo was prepared regarding the place
from where the motorcycle was seized, nor was any
documentary record placed on file establishing its ownership
except an unproduced Rajcop verification. Even the information
allegedly obtained from Rajcop was never brought on record.
Consequently, the prosecution has failed to legally establish any
nexus between the recovered motorcycle and the alleged
commission of the offence.
48. The deficiencies in the investigation extend further. PW-21
admitted that neither he nor the FSL team attempted to lift
blood samples or fingerprints from the handle grip of the seized
motorcycle. He further admitted that the FSL team did not visit
the place of recovery and that the articles were merely
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (22 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
forwarded to the FSL laboratory. Such omissions assume
significance because, had scientific evidence been properly
collected, it could have conclusively established whether the
motorcycle had in fact been used in the commission of the
crime.
49. The investigation relating to electronic evidence is equally
unsatisfactory. PW-21 admitted that neither the Nodal Officers
who issued the call detail records and certificates under Section
65-B of the Evidence Act was examined during investigation nor
their names and addresses were even incorporated in the list of
witnesses. Consequently, the electronic evidence relied upon by
the prosecution lacks proper foundational proof and cannot be
treated as conclusive evidence against the accused-appellant.
50. Equally significant are the admissions of PW-23 Ajay Singh
regarding the overall deficiencies in the investigation. He
admitted that during his investigation no eyewitness to the
incident surfaced. He further admitted that no material came
before him indicating with whom the deceased was last seen
before her death. The complainant Bhagga also never disclosed
before him that anybody had seen the deceased leaving with
the accused-appellant. He further admitted that he did not
investigate who first discovered the dead body in the forest, did
not ascertain whether any missing report had been lodged
during the three days when the deceased remained
untraceable, did not investigate the route through which the
deceased allegedly travelled, nor did he make any inquiry from
persons residing along that route. He also admitted that despite
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (23 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
the body having been recovered from an isolated place, he
neither investigated the possibility of sexual assault nor
requested the post-mortem board to specifically examine the
deceased in that regard.
51. PW-23 further admitted that no meaningful investigation was
carried out regarding the alleged matrimonial dispute or the
subsequent reconciliation between the deceased and the
accused-appellant, despite such circumstance constituting the
alleged motive. He also admitted that no inquiry was conducted
regarding the accused’s whereabouts between 12.01.2023 and
14.01.2023, and that no written order exists on record showing
the transfer of investigation from him to PW-21 Phaliram. The
subsequent investigation was admittedly handed over merely
on verbal directions without any written order or written
instructions indicating the course of further investigation. Such
lapses further weaken the fairness and transparency of the
investigation.
52. The cumulative effect of these admissions leaves no manner of
doubt that the investigation in the present case was neither
complete nor free from serious procedural irregularities.
Material witnesses were not promptly examined, independent
witnesses were not associated during crucial recoveries,
scientific and electronic evidence was inadequately collected,
and several vital aspects capable of establishing the guilt or
innocence of the accused were left unexplored. It is a settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that where the prosecution
case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, each
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (24 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
circumstance must be proved through cogent, reliable and
legally admissible evidence. In the present case, the
investigation itself having suffered from substantial infirmities,
the benefit of such lapses cannot be shifted upon the accused-
appellant. These serious deficiencies materially affect the
credibility of the prosecution case and reinforce the reasonable
doubt regarding the involvement of the accused-appellant.
Consequently, the alleged recoveries, disclosure statements and
other incriminating circumstances cannot safely be relied upon
for sustaining a conviction.
Appreciation of Medical Evidence:
53. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution also requires
careful scrutiny in the backdrop of the entire circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution examined PW-3 Dr. Ravindra Kumar,
PW-6 Dr. Pallavi Sharma, members of the Medical Board which
conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Nima,
and PW-16 Dr. Dilip Kumar Soni, who medically examined the
accused-appellant Premlal. A conjoint reading of their
testimonies does not completely support the prosecution case
in the manner sought to be projected.
54. PW-3 Dr. Ravindra Kumar deposed that on 15.01.2023, the
dead body of Nima was brought to CHC Mavli where a Medical
Board comprising himself and PW-6 Dr. Pallavi Sharma
conducted the post-mortem examination. According to the
post-mortem report (Exhibit P-7), the deceased had sustained
following injuries-
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (25 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
“1. A lacerated wound over the left eye measuring
1/2×1/2 inch.
2. Scratches on the nose and broken nasal bone
were found.
3. A lacerated wound measuring 5×6 inches on the
left cheek.
4. Both the front teeth were found broken.
5. A lacerated wound measuring 1×1/2 inch on the
left ear.
6. Contusions (Nilgu) on the left neck.
7. Contusions (Nilgu) 4×4 inches on the left side of
the neck.”
On internal examination, injury to the scalp and sub-scalp
haemorrhage over the left temporo-parietal region were
noticed, and the cause of death was opined to be ante-mortem
head injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death.
55. However, during cross-examination, PW-3 Dr. Ravindra Kumar
made certain admissions which assume considerable
significance. He categorically admitted that except for the
injuries on the face and head, no external injuries were found
on any other part of the body of the deceased. He further
admitted that if the deceased had struggled with an assailant
prior to her death, abrasion marks or injuries would ordinarily
have been expected on her hands and feet. Significantly, he
admitted that no such injuries suggestive of struggle were
found on the body of the deceased. He further stated that
similar injuries were possible if a person accidentally fell from a
height upon rocks. He also admitted that the time of death
mentioned in the post-mortem report was only an approximate
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (26 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
opinion and that no definite or confirmed time of death could be
given.
56. The evidence of PW-6 Dr. Pallavi Sharma substantially
corroborates the testimony of PW-3. She reiterated that the
deceased had died due to ante-mortem head injury and proved
the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-7). However, in her cross-
examination, she also admitted that no injuries other than
those found on the face and head were present on the body of
the deceased. She specifically stated that where a person
struggles before death, injuries on other parts of the body are
generally expected, but no such injuries were found in the
present case. She further admitted that she could not state
with certainty whether the deceased had actually struggled
before her death or not. She also conceded that injuries of the
nature noticed in the post-mortem could occur if a person fell
face down upon rocks from a hill, and in such a situation
injuries to other parts of the body were also possible.
57. These admissions made by both members of the Medical Board
materially dilute the prosecution theory regarding the manner
of assault. Although the medical evidence undoubtedly
establishes that the deceased died due to ante-mortem head
injuries, it does not conclusively support the prosecution
version that such injuries could only have been caused by a
homicidal assault committed by the accused-appellant. The
possibility indicated by both doctors that similar injuries could
result from a fall upon rocks cannot be completely ignored
while appreciating a case founded entirely upon circumstantial
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (27 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
evidence. More importantly, the complete absence of defensive
injuries or injuries suggestive of resistance assumes
significance in view of the prosecution allegation that the
deceased was brutally assaulted with stones.
58. The evidence of PW-16 Dr. Dilip Kumar Soni, who conducted the
medical examination of the accused-appellant Premlal, also
assumes importance. During his cross-examination, he
categorically admitted that no injury, abrasion or scratch mark
whatsoever was found on the body of the accused-appellant at
the time of his medical examination. He further admitted that
no traces of blood were detected beneath the fingernails of the
accused-appellant. These admissions assume significance
because if, as alleged by the prosecution, the accused-appellant
had assaulted the deceased with heavy stones resulting in
multiple facial injuries and thereafter handled her body, some
marks of resistance or blood traces on the accused-appellant
could reasonably have been expected. The absence of any such
injuries or blood stains does not support the prosecution case.
59. It is also noteworthy that PW-16 admitted that the identity form
(Exhibit P-16) was prepared merely on the basis of the police
report and the particulars furnished by the accused-appellant.
He had not been supplied with any documentary proof of
identity of the accused-appellant, nor had he ascertained the
duration for which the accused-appellant had remained in police
custody prior to his medical examination. Though these
omissions may not by themselves be fatal, they nevertheless
reflect lack of meticulousness in the investigation.
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (28 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
60. Thus, the cumulative effect of the medical evidence is that
while it conclusively establishes that the death of Nima was
caused by ante-mortem head injury, it does not conclusively
establish the identity of the assailant nor does it corroborate
the prosecution version in material particulars. The absence of
any marks of struggle on the body of the deceased, the
possibility acknowledged by both doctors that similar injuries
could occur due to a fall upon rocks, the inability to determine
the precise time of death, and the absence of any injury,
scratch marks or blood traces on the accused-appellant
collectively assume considerable significance. Medical evidence
is essentially corroborative in nature and cannot, by itself,
establish the complicity of the accused-appellant unless
supported by a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial
evidence.
61. In the present case, where the prosecution has failed to
satisfactorily establish the foundational circumstances such as
the “last seen together” theory, reliable recoveries and an
unimpeachable investigation, the medical evidence does not
cure those deficiencies. Rather, the admissions elicited during
cross-examination create further doubt regarding the
prosecution version and, therefore, cannot be treated as
constituting an incriminating circumstance sufficient to sustain
the conviction of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (29 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
Appreciation of FSL and DNA Evidence:
62. The prosecution has placed considerable reliance upon the
Forensic Science Laboratory Report (Exhibit P-28) to contend
that the scientific evidence conclusively establishes the
involvement of the accused-appellant. A careful examination of
the report reveals that human blood was detected on the blood-
stained soil collected from the first and second places of
occurrence, the three blood-stained stones recovered from the
place of occurrence, the stone allegedly recovered at the
instance of the accused-appellant, and the Gamcha (towel)
allegedly recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of the
accused-appellant. DNA examination further established that
the female DNA profile obtained from the blood-stained soil
(Exhibit-1), the three stones recovered from the place of
occurrence (Exhibit-3) and the Lugadi (Odhani) of the deceased
(Exhibit-4) matched with the female DNA profile detected on
the stone allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused
(Exhibit-5). The report further indicates that the DNA profile
obtained from the Gamcha (Exhibit-6) was not an exclusive
female DNA profile but a mixed DNA profile, and that the
alleles of the female DNA profile as well as the male DNA profile
obtained from the blood sample of accused-appellant Premlal
(Exhibit-7) were accounted for in the mixed DNA profile
detected on the said Gamcha.
63. At first glance, the FSL report appears to provide scientific
corroboration regarding the presence of the deceased’s blood
on the stone allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused-
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (30 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
appellant. However, the evidentiary value of scientific evidence
cannot be appreciated in isolation from the circumstances
under which the incriminating articles themselves were
recovered. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that
forensic evidence is merely corroborative in nature and cannot
independently establish the guilt of an accused unless the
foundational facts leading to the recovery of the incriminating
articles are first proved by reliable and legally admissible
evidence.
64. In the present case, as already discussed hereinabove, the very
recovery proceedings suffer from serious legal and factual
infirmities. PW-21 Phaliram admitted that no independent
witnesses were associated with the alleged recoveries and only
police personnel acted as witnesses. He further admitted that
no explanation has been recorded in the recovery memos
regarding the non-availability of independent witnesses. It also
stands admitted that the alleged disclosure statements under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were recorded by the
Investigating Officer himself in the absence of any independent
witness and were typed by him while only he and the accused-
appellant were present. Such procedural irregularities inevitably
cast doubt upon the genuineness and voluntariness of the
alleged disclosure statements and the consequential recoveries.
65. The reliability of the recoveries is further weakened by the
material contradiction between the two Investigating Officers.
PW-23 Ajay Singh categorically admitted that during his
inspection of the place of occurrence, every blood-stained
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (31 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
article found at the spot had already been seized and nothing
incriminating was left behind. In contrast, PW-21 Phaliram
subsequently claimed recovery of another blood-stained stone
and the Gamcha from substantially the same place pursuant to
the alleged disclosure statement of the accused. PW-21 himself
admitted that the place shown in Exhibits P-10 and P-11 was
practically the same, separated only by a distance of about 10
to 15 feet. Once the initial Investigating Officer had already
conducted a thorough search and seized all blood-stained
articles available at the scene, the subsequent recovery of
additional blood-stained articles from the same locality
becomes inherently doubtful. Consequently, the very foundation
upon which the FSL report rests becomes uncertain.
66. Another significant aspect emerging from the FSL report is that
while the stone allegedly recovered at the instance of the
accused-appellant yielded the female DNA profile matching that
of the deceased, the Gamcha (Exhibit-6), which the prosecution
seeks to portray as the cloth used by the accused-appellant for
wiping blood from his hands, did not yield an exclusive female
DNA profile. On the contrary, the report specifically records that
the Gamcha contained a mixed DNA profile, comprising the
alleles of the female DNA profile as well as the male DNA profile
of accused-appellant Premlal. The presence of a mixed DNA
profile on an article of clothing allegedly belonging to the
accused-appellant cannot, by itself, establish the prosecution
case unless it is first proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
Gamcha was in fact recovered from the exclusive possession of
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (32 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
the accused-appellant in accordance with law and that the chain
of custody remained free from suspicion. In the absence of
reliable proof regarding the legality and authenticity of the
recovery itself, the mixed DNA profile found on the Gamcha
loses much of its incriminating value.
67. It is equally significant that the prosecution has not produced
any evidence to establish that the Gamcha bore any distinctive
mark, identification or other feature linking it exclusively to the
accused-appellant. PW-21 Phaliram himself admitted that the
seized black towel (Gamcha) carried no identifying mark
whatsoever. Thus, apart from the disputed recovery, there is no
independent evidence connecting the said article with the
accused-appellant.
68. Therefore, although Exhibit P-28 undoubtedly establishes that
the blood detected on certain seized articles was human blood
and that the female DNA profile matched that of the deceased,
such scientific evidence cannot, by itself, complete the chain of
circumstantial evidence. The forensic report merely establishes
the identity of the biological material found on the articles
submitted for examination; it does not prove the legality of
their seizure, the truthfulness of the disclosure statements, or
the involvement of the accused-appellant in the commission of
the offence. Where the recoveries themselves are rendered
doubtful on account of procedural lapses, absence of
independent witnesses, contradictions between the
Investigating Officers and unexplained deficiencies in the
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (33 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
investigation, the FSL report cannot be elevated to the status of
substantive evidence so as to cure those fundamental defects.
69. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that Exhibit P-
28, though scientifically demonstrating a matching female DNA
profile on certain exhibits, is merely a corroborative piece of
evidence. In the absence of reliable proof regarding the
foundational facts leading to the recovery of those articles, the
FSL report by itself is insufficient to establish the guilt of the
accused-apellant beyond reasonable doubt or to complete the
chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution case rests.
Consequently, no adverse inference can safely be drawn against
the accused-appellant solely on the basis of the forensic report.
Appreciation of Electronic Evidence (Call Detail Records):
70. The prosecution has also relied upon the Call Detail Records
(Exhibit P-33) to establish communication between the
accused-appellant Premlal and the deceased Nima immediately
prior to the occurrence. A perusal of the call details reveals that
on 12.01.2023, several calls were exchanged between mobile
number 8905796904, alleged to have been used by accused-
appellant Premlal, and mobile number 9079097729, alleged to
have been used by deceased Nima. Prima facie, these call
records indicate that there was telephonic communication
between the two numbers on the date of the incident, which
may lend some support to the prosecution case that the
accused-appellant and the deceased were in contact before the
occurrence.
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (34 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
71. However, the evidentiary value of the said electronic evidence is
required to be examined in the light of the deficiencies admitted
by the Investigating Officer during cross-examination. It is an
admitted position that neither the mobile handset allegedly
used by the accused-appellant nor the handset allegedly used
by the deceased was recovered during investigation. Likewise,
no SIM card was recovered or proved to have remained in the
exclusive possession and use of either the accused-appellant or
the deceased. In the absence of recovery of the mobile devices
or other cogent evidence establishing their exclusive use, the
prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the concerned mobile numbers were, in fact, being exclusively
operated by the accused-appellant and the deceased at the
relevant point of time.
72. The evidence of PW-21 Phaliram further reveals that the
investigation into the electronic evidence remained wholly
incomplete. He categorically admitted that the names and
addresses of the Nodal Officers who supplied the Call Detail
Records and the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act were not included in the list of prosecution
witnesses and that their statements were never recorded
during investigation. Consequently, the prosecution failed to
examine the persons who generated and certified the electronic
records, thereby leaving the foundational facts relating to the
electronic evidence inadequately proved.
73. It is equally significant that the prosecution has not produced
any location analysis or tower location evidence conclusively
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (35 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
demonstrating that both mobile numbers were operating from
the same place or that the accused-appellant and the deceased
were physically together at the relevant time. Mere exchange of
telephone calls between two mobile numbers only establishes
that communication took place between those numbers. It does
not, by itself, establish the identity of the persons using those
numbers, their physical proximity, their meeting with each
other, or their participation in the commission of the alleged
offence.
74. In a case resting entirely upon circumstantial evidence,
electronic evidence can undoubtedly furnish a valuable
corroborative circumstance. However, such evidence cannot be
treated as conclusive unless the prosecution first establishes
the foundational facts regarding ownership, exclusive
possession and use of the mobile numbers, the authenticity of
the electronic records, and their nexus with the accused-
appellant and the deceased. In the present case, those
foundational facts have not been satisfactorily proved.
75. Therefore, although Exhibit P-33 may indicate that calls were
exchanged between the two mobile numbers on the relevant
date, such circumstance, by itself, is insufficient to establish
that the accused-appellant and the deceased were together
immediately before the occurrence or that the accused-
appellant participated in the commission of the offence. In the
absence of recovery of the mobile handsets, proof of exclusive
use of the concerned numbers, examination of the Nodal
Officers and reliable location evidence, the Call Detail Records
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (36 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
remain only a weak corroborative circumstance and cannot be
treated as an incriminating circumstance sufficient to complete
the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused.
76. Thus, on an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court
finds that the prosecution has failed to establish several
essential links in the chain of circumstances. The last seen
circumstance remains doubtful; the motive remains unproved;
the investigation suffers from material omissions and
procedural irregularities; the recoveries are surrounded by
serious suspicion; the electronic evidence lacks proper
foundational proof; and the medical evidence does not
conclusively support the prosecution theory to the exclusion of
every other possibility.
77. The law with regard to a case based purely on circumstantial
evidence has very well been crystalized in the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein this Court held
thus:
“152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by
the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on
the nature, character and essential proof required in a
criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence
alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this
Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952)
2 SCC 71: AIR 1952 SC 343: 1952 SCR 1091: 1953 Cri
LJ 129]. This case has been uniformly followed and
applied by this Court in a large number of later
decisions up to date, for instance, the cases of Tufail
(Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC
198: 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (37 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625: AIR 1972 SC 656]. It
may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid
down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71: AIR 1952
SC 343: 1952 SCR 1091: 1953 Cri LJ 129]:
“It is well to remember that in case where
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should in the first instance be fully
established, and all the facts so established should
be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and they
should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but
the one proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such as to show that within
all human probability the act must have been done
by the accused.”
78. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the entire evidence
available on record and the settled principles governing cases
resting solely on circumstantial evidence, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to satisfy the
well-established principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra (Supra) governing proof by circumstantial
evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution
have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, nor do they
form a complete and unbroken chain pointing unerringly
towards the guilt of the accused-appellant. The alleged
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (38 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
circumstance of “last seen together” has not been established
by cogent and reliable evidence; the motive remains uncertain
and inconclusive; the investigation suffers from serious
procedural lapses and unexplained omissions; the recovery
proceedings are rendered doubtful due to absence of
independent witnesses and material contradictions in the
evidence of the Investigating Officers; the electronic evidence
lacks the necessary foundational proof regarding ownership and
exclusive use of the mobile numbers; and the medical as well
as forensic evidence, being merely corroborative in nature,
cannot by themselves complete the missing links in the chain of
circumstances. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to
exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the
innocence of the accused-appellant, and the chain of
incriminating circumstances remains incomplete.
79. In view of the foregoing discussion and the cumulative
appreciation of the entire oral, documentary, medical, scientific
and electronic evidence available on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken
chain of incriminating circumstances leading only to the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused-appellant. On the
contrary, several material circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution remain unproved, doubtful and inconsistent with
the prosecution case, thereby creating a reasonable doubt
regarding the complicity of the accused-appellant. It is a
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (39 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that however strong
the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of legal proof,
and where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence
adduced, the one favourable to the accused must necessarily
prevail. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial
Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective
and proceeded to record the conviction by placing reliance upon
circumstances which neither stood fully established nor formed
a complete chain consistent only with the guilt of the accused-
appellant. Consequently, the findings of conviction recorded by
the learned Trial Court in the judgment dated 08.12.2025 suffer
from misappreciation of evidence and cannot be sustained in
law. The conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of death penalty
imposed upon him are, therefore, liable to be set aside.
80. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal filed by the accused-appellant
is allowed, whereas the Murder Reference made by the
learned Trial Court for confirmation of the death sentence is
answered in negative. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court
are hereby quashed and set aside. The accused-appellant is
acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC by extending to
him the benefit of doubt. He shall be released forthwith, if not
required to be detained in any other case.
81. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 481
B.N.S.S, 2023 the accused-appellant is directed to forthwith
furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30638-DB] (40 of 40) [MREF-4/2025]
bond in the like amount, before the learned trial court, which
shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in
the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the
judgment or for grant of leave, the accused-apellant, on receipt
of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble the Supreme
Court.
82. Office is directed to send the record of the trial court
forthwith.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
181/Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal/-
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 02:24:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 10:54:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
