Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Chandra Ram And Ors on 28 March, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 611/2005
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Chandra Ram @ Ram Chandra S/o Bhiyan Ram.
2. Bhiyan Ram S/o Jai Ram
3. Kalki W/o Bhiyan Ram
All R/o Village Lototi, P.S. Jaitaran, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh, Rathore, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)
1. Date of conclusion of argument 25.03.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was 25.03.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
operative part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 28.03.2026
1. The instant D.B. Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-State of Rajasthan under Sections 378(iii) & (i) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the accused-
respondents namely (1) Chandra Ram son of Bhiyan Ram, (2)
Bhiyan Ram son of Jai Ram, and (3) Smt. Kalki wife of Bhiyan
Ram, assailing the validity of the judgment dated 29.04.2005
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 1),
Pali, in Sessions Case No. 25/2004 (68/2004), whereby the
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB] (2 of 12) [CRLA-611/2005]
accused-respondents have been acquitted of the offences under
Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Mangi Lal
submitted a written report (Ex.P-3) on 27.04.2004 at about 10:00
AM to the Station House Officer, Police Station Jaitaran, at the
graveyard of village Lototi, stating therein that his daughter Smt.
Mokli Devi had been married to accused-respondent Chandra Ram
about three years prior to the incident. It was alleged that for
about two years, the matrimonial life of the deceased remained
peaceful, however, for the last one year; she was subjected to
cruelty and harassment by her husband Chandra Ram and her in-
laws, namely Bhiyan Ram and Smt. Kalki. About three months
prior to the incident, she was allegedly assaulted by the accused
respondents, during which Bhiyan Ram inflicted a lathi blow on her
head, causing bleeding injuries. It was further alleged that upon
being asked about the reason for such cruelty, the deceased
disclosed to her parents that her father-in-law Bhiyan Ram, being
habitual drunkard, had been attempting to outrage her modesty,
and when she narrated these facts to her husband, he ignored the
same. It was also stated that the deceased had a female child
aged about one and a half years and was pregnant for about six
months at the relevant time. Thereafter, the complainant along
with certain villagers visited the matrimonial home of the
deceased to resolve the dispute, but the accused respondents
allegedly threatened that they would mutilate and kill her. It was
further alleged that on 26.04.2004, the complainant’s brother
Dagla Ram informed him that the accused respondents, namely
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB] (3 of 12) [CRLA-611/2005]
Bhiyan Ram, Smt. Kalki, Chandra Ram and others, had conspired
and murdered Smt. Mokli Devi and were attempting to destroy
evidence of her dead body. Upon receiving this information, the
complainant along with several villagers reached village Lototi,
where neither the accused-respondents nor the dead body of the
deceased was found in the house. Subsequently, they reached the
graveyard where the dead body of Smt. Mokli Devi was being
cremated. The fire was extinguished and a half-burnt body was
recovered. Blood-stained clothes (kafan) were also found at the
spot.
3. On the basis of the said information, a formal FIR No.
115/2004 was registered at Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali for
the offences under Sections 302/34, 201 and 120-B IPC.
4. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-
sheet against the accused-respondents before the Court of learned
ACJM, Jaitaran, from where the case, being exclusively triable by
the Court of Sessions, was committed to the Court of Sessions and
thereafter transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge (Fast Track No. 1), Pali for trial.
5. The learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the
charges against the accused-respondents for the offences under
Sections 120-B read with 302, 302 and 201 IPC. The accused-
respondents denied the charges and claimed trial.
6. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16
witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence from Ex.P-1 to
Ex.P-75 in support of its case.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB] (4 of 12) [CRLA-611/2005]
7. The statements of the accused-respondents were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the
prosecution evidence and claimed innocence. Accused-respondent
Chandra Ram @ Ram Chandra @ Chandra Prakash, in his
explanation, stated that due to prior enmity, false proceedings had
been initiated against him. He asserted that his wife, who was
pregnant at the relevant time, had gone to fetch water from a
well, accidentally slipped and fell into it, and died due to
suffocation and excessive bleeding. He further stated that on the
day of the incident, he was working as a truck driver and had
gone to Beawar. He also stated that prior to the cremation of the
deceased, her parental family was duly informed, and they
participated in the last rites by bringing clothes for the deceased.
The accused-respondents denied having caused any assault to the
deceased. In support of their defence, the accused-respondents
examined DW-1 Labu Ram, DW-2 Mahendra and DW-3 Girdhari
Singh, who deposed in consonance with the defence version.
8. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments
advanced by both sides and upon appreciation of the entire
evidence available on record, vide judgment dated 29.04.2005,
acquitted all the accused-respondents of the charges by extending
the benefit of doubt.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 29.04.2005, the appellant-State has
preferred the present Appeal.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB] (5 of 12) [CRLA-611/2005]
10. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State
vehemently submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred both
on facts as well as in law while acquitting the accused-respondents
of the charges levelled against them. He submitted that the
impugned judgment is illegal, perverse, contrary to the evidence
available on record and against the settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned
Trial Court has gravely erred in disbelieving the statements of the
prosecution witnesses, despite the fact that their testimonies
clearly establish the guilt of the accused-respondents. According
to the prosecution, the evidence led on record, if appreciated in its
proper perspective, unmistakably points towards the involvement
of the accused-respondents in the commission of the alleged
offences.
12. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Trial
Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of material
witnesses, including PW-8 Dhagla Ram (eye-witness), PW-2 Amara
Ram, PW-3 Amar Chand, PW-4 Mangi Lal (complainant), PW-5
Roopa Ram, PW-6 Sangram, PW-7 Sena Ram, PW-9 Habib Khan,
PW-11 Hemant Kumar, PW-14 Malla Ram, PW-15 Chena Ram and
PW-16 Kishan Lal. He further submitted that PW-4 Mangi Lal
categorically deposed that his daughter Smt. Mokli Devi was
married to accused-respondent Chandra Ram about three years
prior to the incident and that after an initial period of cordial
relations, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB] (6 of 12) [CRLA-611/2005]
laws. He further stated that upon receiving information from his
brother Dhagla Ram regarding the murder of his daughter, he
reached the matrimonial house along with other villagers and,
finding it deserted, proceeded to the graveyard where the dead
body of his daughter was cremated. According to the learned
Public Prosecutor, these testimonies clearly establish the
culpability of the accused-respondents; however, the learned Trial
Court has erroneously discarded the same.
13. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
prosecution has successfully proved its case by leading cogent and
reliable evidence on record, which was sufficient to bring home the
guilt of the accused-respondents. However, the learned Trial Court,
on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures, acquitted the
accused-respondents, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.
14. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the findings of
acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on
unwarranted assumptions, improper appreciation of evidence and
hyper-technical considerations, ignoring the material evidence
available on record. He further submitted that such an approach
has resulted in failure of justice, and therefore, the impugned
judgment deserves to be interfered with by this Court.
15. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PW-8 Dhagla Ram,
an eye-witness to the incident, has clearly supported the
prosecution case and categorically deposed regarding the
involvement of the accused-respondents in the commission of the
murder of Smt. Mokli Devi. However, the learned Trial Court failed
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB] (7 of 12) [CRLA-611/2005]
to properly appreciate his testimony and unjustifiably discarded
the same while recording acquittal.
16. Lastly, Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to
the information furnished by accused Chandra Ram, recoveries of
articles used in the commission of the offence were effected,
which were duly proved by the prosecution witnesses. Despite
this, the learned Trial Court failed to consider such incriminating
material in its proper perspective and erroneously acquitted the
accused-respondents. Thus, on all these grounds, it is prayed that
the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the accused-
respondents be convicted for the offences charged.
17. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the
appellant-State prayed that the impugned judgment of acquittal
be set aside and the accused-respondents be convicted in
accordance with law.
18. Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi, learned Amicus Curaie, appearing on behalf
of accused-respondents had opposed the submissions made by
the counsel for the appellant – state and has supported the
judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
No. 1), Pali, and he submitted that there is no infirmity in the
order passed by the learned trial court while acquitting the
accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302
and 201 IPC. Vide judgment dated 29.04.2005.
19. We have considered the submissions made before this Court
and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case,
including the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2005.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB] (8 of 12) [CRLA-611/2005]
20. PW-8 Dagla Ram, in his deposition before the Court, stated
that on 26.04.2004, upon being requested by his brother Mangi
Lal to look after Mokli Devi, he went to Jakhado ki dhimdi and
reached there on the night of 26th. However, as per the contents
of the written report (Ex.P-3), it is mentioned that on the said
date, Dagla Ram was present in village Lototi for some work and
thereafter went to Raniwal in the morning and informed about the
alleged incident. His police statement (Ex.P-12) further reveals a
different version, wherein he stated that he had gone to village
Lototi and in the evening went to meet his niece Mokli Devi at her
house. Thus, there are material inconsistencies between the FIR,
the police statement and the deposition in Court on this crucial
aspect, which creates serious doubt about his presence at the
place of occurrence.
21. It is noteworthy that PW-8 Dagla Ram deposed before the
Court that upon reaching the house of the accused-respondent,
Bhiyan Ram confronted him and asked him to leave, threatening
him. However, these facts find no mention in his police statement
(Ex.P-12). During cross-examination, the witness admitted that he
had not stated these facts before the police and sought to explain
the omission by stating that the police did not ask him. Similarly,
his statements regarding being frightened, hiding near a tree close
to the well, observing the movements of the accused respondents,
and the conduct of Smt. Kalki coming out of the house and
returning inside, are also absent in his police statement. These
omissions amount to material improvements, thereby rendering
his testimony unreliable.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB] (9 of 12) [CRLA-611/2005]
22. On a cumulative assessment of the testimony of PW-8 Dagla
Ram, it is apparent that he has made several improvements and
additions in his Court statement which were not part of his earlier
version. His conduct, as narrated by him, also appears unnatural
and does not inspire confidence. According to his version, despite
allegedly witnessing the commission of murder of his niece, he
neither made any attempt to intervene effectively nor sought
immediate help from nearby villagers, even though the village was
situated at a short distance. Instead, he remained concealed near
the place of occurrence throughout the night and only proceeded
towards the village in the morning. Such conduct does not appear
to be consistent with the normal human behaviour of a person
witnessing such a grave incident.
23. It is also noteworthy that as per his own statement, although
the accused respondents allegedly noticed his presence during the
commission of the offence yet they allowed him to leave
unharmed. This circumstance further renders his version doubtful
and contrary to normal human conduct. Additionally, the incident
is stated to have occurred during night hours in the absence of
sufficient light, making it improbable for the witness to have
clearly seen and identified the assailants in the manner alleged.
24. Thus, in view of the material contradictions, omissions and
improvements in the testimony of PW-8 Dagla Ram, coupled with
his unnatural conduct, we are of the considered opinion that his
evidence does not meet the standard of reliability required for
sustaining conviction, particularly when he is the sole eye-witness.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB] (10 of 12) [CRLA-611/2005]
25. So far as the allegation regarding hurried cremation of the
dead body is concerned, the prosecution has failed to adduce any
cogent evidence to establish that the accused respondents
clandestinely cremated the body to destroy evidence. No
independent witness has supported this version. On the contrary,
defence witness DW-3 Girdhari Singh has stated that a large
number of villagers, including persons from Raniwal, attended the
cremation. Even otherwise, prosecution witnesses PW-12 Mangilal
and PW-13 Hira Ram did not support the prosecution case on this
aspect and were declared hostile.
26. The circumstance relating to recovery of a rope at the
instance of accused-respondent Chandra Ram also does not
advance the prosecution case. The rope was neither sent for
forensic examination nor was any conclusive evidence led to
connect the same with the alleged offence. Moreover, the manner
of use of the rope as narrated by PW-8 Dagla Ram does not
correspond with the nature of the rope recovered, thereby
creating further doubt regarding the prosecution story.
27. The Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P-75) merely
indicates that the stains found on the clothes recovered from the
cremation ground were of human blood. However, in absence of
any further linkage evidence, this circumstance alone is
insufficient to connect the accused-respondents with the
commission of the offence.
28. It is also pertinent to note that the medical evidence does
not conclusively establish the cause of death. PW-1 Dr. B.L. Patel,
who examined the semi-burnt body, could not ascertain the cause
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB] (11 of 12) [CRLA-611/2005]
of death and certain samples were sent for forensic examination,
but no definite report has been produced on record to establish
homicidal death.
29. The circumstance relating to use of a tractor and trolley for
carrying the dead body also remains doubtful, as there are
material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses
and no independent witness has corroborated this fact. Notably,
such a circumstance does not find mention in the earlier
statements of material witnesses, thereby rendering it unreliable.
30. Upon cumulative evaluation of the entire evidence, it appears
that although suspicion may arise regarding the involvement of
the accused-respondents, the prosecution has failed to establish a
complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the
guilt of the accused-respondents. The evidence on record falls
short of the standard of proof required in a criminal trial.
31. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that
suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. In the
present case, the testimony of the sole eye-witness is unreliable
and the circumstantial evidence is neither complete nor
conclusive. The prosecution has also failed to prove the charge of
criminal conspiracy or destruction of evidence by leading cogent
and convincing evidence.
32. The testimony of the sole eye-witness, PW-8 Dagla Ram,
does not inspire confidence and fails to meet the standard of
reliability required for sustaining conviction. His evidence is
neither cogent nor consistent, and even when read in conjunction
with the other circumstances brought on record, it does not lead
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14241-DB] (12 of 12) [CRLA-611/2005]
to an unequivocal conclusion pointing towards the guilt of the
accused-respondents.
33. Thus, taking into consideration the entire evidence on record
and the points for determination, it is evident that the prosecution
has failed to prove all the essential ingredients of the offences
alleged against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable
doubt. Consequently, the accused-respondents are entitled to the
benefit of doubt.
34. In view of aforesaid observation, we find no infirmity or
perversity in the concurrent findings of learned Additional Sessions
Judge (Fast Track No. 1), Pali, below. Hence, impugned judgment
of Acquittal dated 28.09.2002 is upheld.
35. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
36. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A
Cr.P.C. the accused-respondents is directed to forthwith furnish a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety 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 of acquittal or for
grant of leave, the accused-respondents, on receipt of notice
thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble the Supreme Court.
37. Office is directed to send the record of the trial court
forthwith.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
171-Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal/-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:31:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
