Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sukha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan … on 16 February, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:8463-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 405/2025
Sukha Ram S/o Shri Dungar Ram, Aged About 38 Years,
Resident Of Village Korana, Tehsil Kalyanpur, District Balotara
(Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mohan Ram Alias Mohan Lal S/o Shri Bheeya Ram,
Resident Of Village Korana, P.s. Mandali, District Balotara
(Raj.)
3. Mangala Ram S/o Shri Bheeya Ram, Resident Of Village
Korana, P.s. Mandali, District Balotara (Raj.)
4. Taga Ram S/o Shri Bheeya Ram, Resident Of Village
Korana, P.s. Mandali, District Balotara (Raj.)
5. Bhura Ram S/o Shri Mohan Lal Alias Mohan Lal, Resident
Of Village Korana, P.s. Mandali, District Balotara (Raj.)
6. Ummeda Ram S/o Shri Mohan Ram, Resident Of Village
Korana, P.s. Mandali, District Balotara (Raj.)
7. Smt Dakhu Devi W/o Shri Mangala Ram, Resident Of
Village Korana, P.s. Mandali, District Balotara (Raj.)
8. Amara Ram S/o Shri Mangala Ram, Sayab Nagar Doli, P.s.
Kalyanpura, Distt. Balotara (Raj.)
9. Shrawan Ram S/o Shri Ghewar Ram, Resident Of
Bawarla, Ps Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur (Raj)
10. Kheta Ram S/o Shri Basti Ram, Resident Of Village
Korana, P.s. Mandali, District Balotara (Raj.) (Proceedings
Dropped As The Accused Died On 28-04-2015)
11. Rupa Ram S/o Shri Dheema Ram, Resident Of Sayab
Nagar Doli, Ps Kalyanpur, District Balotara (Raj)
(Proceeding Dropped As The Accused Died On 25-10-
2021)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
16/02/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the
complainant – Sukha Ram against the judgment dated
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:10:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8463-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLAD-405/2025]
11.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Balotra (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions
Case No.7/2012, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them for
the offence under Sections 147, 427, 436, 440, 447, 323/149,
3. As per the prosecution case, as borne out from the record is
that on 28.03.2010 at about 4:00 A.M., the complainant Sukhram
submitted a written report at Police Station Mandali, District
Jodhpur. In the said report, he alleged that while he was
proceeding towards Jodhpur, he received information on the way
that his family members were being assaulted, whereupon he
immediately returned home. Upon reaching his house, he
allegedly found the accused persons, namely Mohanram,
Mangalaram, Tagaram, Ummedaram, Bhuraram, Ramaram,
Suraram, Khetaram, Ranaram, Pintaram, Hanumanram, Dakhu,
Gogi, Uki, Khama, Leela and Mamta, assaulting his father
Dungaram, his mother and his sister. The complainant further
alleged that when he requested the accused persons not to
commit the assault, they paid no heed. The accused persons
allegedly set fire to the shed and vegetable stall situated in front
of his house. It was also stated that in a premeditated manner,
the accused persons trespassed into the enclosure where his
parents and sister were sleeping and inflicted injuries upon them,
causing three to four injuries to his father, Dungaram. The
occurrence is stated to have taken place at about 12:30 A.M. in
the intervening night. The complainant further alleged that there
existed a land dispute between the parties, which was pending
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:10:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8463-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLAD-405/2025]
before the Court, and the said dispute was the motive behind the
incident. He, therefore, prayed that appropriate legal action be
taken against the accused persons.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report submitted by the
complainant-appellant herein, an FIR No.18/2010 came to be
registered at Police Station Mandali for offence under Sections
147, 323, 325, 447, 440, 427, 436 and 302/149 of the Indian
Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the police submitted
a charge-sheet against the accused persons, namely Mohanram @
Mohanlal, Mangalaram, Tagaram, Bhuraram, Ummedaram, Smt.
Dakhudevi and Khetaram before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Pachpadra. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate
committed the case to the Court of learned District and Sessions
Judge, Balotra. Upon receipt of the case on 01.11.2010, the
learned District and Sessions Judge took cognizance of the
offences under the aforesaid sections and registered the Sessions
Case. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Additional
Sessions Judge, Balotra for hearing and disposal in accordance
with law.
5. During the course of investigation, supplementary charge-
sheets (Titamba Challan) were filed before the concerned
Magistrate on different dates against the remaining accused,
namely Ruparam, Amararam and Shravanram, for the offences
under the aforesaid sections and, thereafter a joint trial was
conducted and concluded in accordance with law.
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:10:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8463-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLAD-405/2025]
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 28
witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced
documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-45.
7. The accused – respondents were examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C., during which they denied the prosecution evidence in
its entirety and claimed innocence. In defence, the accused –
respondents produced documentary evidence as Exhibits D-1 to
D-09 and examined witnesses – DW-01 Bhanwar Lal and DW-02 –
Manglaram.
8. The accused-respondents denied the charges levelled against
them and sought for trial. During trial, since accused Kheta Ram
and Rupa Ram died, therefore, the proceedings against them were
dropped.
9. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced
on behalf of both sides, upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record, acquitted the accused
respondents as aforesaid vide its judgment dated 11.09.2025.
Therefore, the present appeal has been preferred by the
complainant-appellant against the judgment of their acquittal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has
vehemently submitted before this Court that the learned trial
Court has erred in law as well as on facts in acquitting the
respondent-accused persons of the charges framed against them.
He submits that the finding of acquittal is contrary to the material
available on record. Learned counsel submits that on 28.03.2010,
the respondent-accused persons assaulted Dungar Ram and his
family members and inflicted multiple injuries upon them, as a
result of which Dungar Ram succumbed to the injuries. He submits
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:10:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8463-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLAD-405/2025]
that the postmortem report of deceased Dungar Ram clearly
reflects that he had sustained several injuries on different parts of
his body, which establishes the homicidal nature of the incident.
11. He further submits that the testimony of PW-7 Shanti Devi
categorically states that the respondent-accused persons came to
the place where deceased Dungar Ram was present and inflicted
multiple injuries upon him, which ultimately resulted in his death.
Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the statement of
PW-16 Jassi Devi, who has deposed that the respondent-accused
persons were the aggressors and had initiated the assault. On the
strength of these submissions, it is urged that the impugned
judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside.
12. Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant further
submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the
evidence on record in its proper perspective and has erroneously
recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the respondent-accused
persons. He submits that the impugned judgment suffers from
misappreciation of material evidence and is liable to be interfered
with by this Court.
13. He further submits that although deceased Dungar Ram was
suffering from multiple ailments, including a kidney-related
disorder, the injuries sustained by him in the incident in question
materially aggravated his pre-existing medical condition, which
ultimately resulted in his death. According to learned counsel, the
causal connection between the injuries inflicted and the death of
the deceased stands duly established from the medical and ocular
evidence available on record. On these premises, learned counsel
prays that the present appeal may be allowed and the judgment
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:10:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8463-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLAD-405/2025]
dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned trial Court be quashed
and set aside, and the respondent-accused persons be convicted
and sentenced in accordance with law for the offences alleged
against them.
14. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the appellant and has supported the
judgment of the learned trial Court. He submits that, as per the
material available on record, deceased Dungar Ram was already
suffering from multiple ailments, including a serious kidney
disorder. He further submits that, as per the statement of PW-14
Jagdish Jugtawat, it has come on record that Dungar Ram was
suffering from Tuberculosis; his condition was extremely critical
and he was virtually on his deathbed prior to the alleged incident.
15. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submits that the
testimony of PW-4 Dr. Kuldeep Solanki clearly establishes that the
injuries sustained by Dungar Ram were simple in nature and none
of the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. He also submits that the present case arises out
of a free fight between the parties, as cross-FIRs were lodged by
both sides, and the respondent-accused persons had also
sustained injuries in the same occurrence. He, therefore, submits
that the incident occurred in the heat of passion and at the spur of
the moment, wherein both sides sustained injuries. Since the
injuries sustained by Dungar Ram were neither on vital parts of
the body nor grievous in nature, and were simple injuries, the
learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and
recorded a finding of acquittal. According to the learned Public
Prosecutor, the impugned judgment dated 11.09.2025 does not
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:10:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8463-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLAD-405/2025]
suffer from any illegality or perversity and warrants no
interference by this Court, and the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
16. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced at the Bar and have minutely scrutinized
the oral and documentary evidence on record, including the
impugned judgment dated 11.09.2025.
17. As per the testimony of PW-14 Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat and the
post-mortem report Ex.P-35, it has come on record that deceased
Dungar Ram was suffering from multiple ailments and was in a
highly fragile medical condition. The witness has deposed that his
overall health was extremely poor at the relevant point of time. It
is further evident from the statement of PW-4 Dr. Kuldeep Solanki
and injury report Ex.P-08, that the injuries sustained by Dungar
Ram were simple in nature and none of the said injuries was
sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.
Moreover, from the appreciation of the evidence available on
record, it clearly transpires that the incident was a case of a free
fight between the parties, wherein members of the complainant
party had also sustained multiple injuries.
18. The learned trial Court has, upon due appreciation of the
evidence on record, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the
present case was one of a free fight between both the parties, in
which members of the accused party had also sustained injuries.
The trial Court has further observed that the injuries sustained by
deceased Dungar Ram as well as by other injured persons were
simple in nature and were not sufficient, in the ordinary course of
nature, to cause death. In view thereof, this Court is of the
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:10:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8463-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLAD-405/2025]
considered opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed
any illegality or perversity in acquitting the respondent-accused
persons. The learned trial Court has also recorded a finding, on
the basis of the statement of PW-20, that it has come on record
that the fire was allegedly lit by Dungar Ram himself, and
therefore the ingredients of the offences under Sections 427, 436
and 440 IPC were not established against the accused persons.
Further, even after considering the injuries sustained by Shanti
Devi PW-7, the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the
injuries suffered by her were not grievous in nature. It has also
been noticed that the alleged weapon of offence, namely a
dhariya, was not recovered during the course of investigation.
Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court do
not warrant interference.
19. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings arrived
at by the learned trial court does not suffer from any infirmity.
20 The present appeal being bereft of any merit, is hereby
dismissed.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
4-Kartik/nitin/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:10:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:06:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
