[2025:RJ-JP:22546-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 584/2001 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Nand Singh @ Boni s/o Bhakar Singh, aged 22 years, R/o Gaddi, Arjunpura, P.S. Mangliwas, District Ajmer ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. GA assisted by Ms. Neha Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta assisted by Mr. Ramsharan Sinsinwar, Ajay Gadhwal, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Mr. Chitransh Saxena, Ms. Anisha Yadav & Mr. Ankit Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 28/05/2025 (PER HON'BLE BHUWAN GOYAL J.) 1. The appellant – State of Rajasthan has preferred instant appeal under Section 378(i)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.93/1999 (State of Rajasthan vs. Nand Singh @ Boni), whereby accused-respondent has been acquitted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by extending benefit of doubt to him. 2. Brief facts relevant and germane for disposal of the present appeal are that on 26.07.1999 at 3.35 p.m., an unknown person informed at Police Station Mangaliyawas through telephone that [2025:RJ-JP:22546-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLA-584/2001] Boni Singh had ablazed his wife in Arjunpura. On the basis of said information, entry was made in the Rojnamcha (Ex.P/27) and the police reached the spot, where husband of deceased Tammu Kanwar, namely, Nand Singh alias Boni Singh submitted a written report (Ex.P/28), on the basis of which an Inquest Report No. 14/1999 under Section 176 of Cr.P.C. was registered. During the course of enquiry, on 30.07.1999, complainant Ladu Singh (P.W. 1), brother of deceased, submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ajmer to the effect that marriage of his sister, namely, Tammu Kanwar was solemnized with Nand Singh in the year 1993 and his Gona (Muklawa) was done in the year 1995. His sister used to visit her in-laws house in Village Gadhi Arjunpura Jagir. After marriage, Nand Singh did not talk to complainant’s sister and used to beat her. His sister used to stay with them for 2-4 months and at her in-laws house in Gadhi Arjunpura for 1-2 months. When his sister used to visit them, she stated that her husband Nand Singh was having an affair with some other girl and for this reason, he would kill her. Nand Singh never resided happily with his sister and they were not in talking terms. His sister was earning livelihood by working in carpet factory. His sister Tammu Kanwar was strangulated by Nand Singh and to hide the murder, dead body was burnt by pouring kerosene on it. 3. On the basis of said written report, an F.I.R. No.162/1999 (Ex.P/2) came to be registered at the Police Station Mangaliyawas, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. [2025:RJ-JP:22546-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLA-584/2001] and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondent for the aforesaid offences before the court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasirabad, District Ajmer, who took cognizance of aforesaid offences against accused-respondent and committed the case to the court of Sessions, from where it was transferred to the court of learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer (for short ‘learned trial court’ hereinafter). 4. After hearing arguments on the point of charges, the trial court discharged accused-respondent for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. but framed charge against the accused- respondent for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused-respondent did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and got documents exhibited from Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/55 to prove its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, which he denied and stated that prosecution evidence was false, he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He also stated that he had no dispute with Tammu Kanwar; he did not know who ablazed Tammu Kanwar; at that time, he had gone to his field (Bera), where 2-3 children informed him on the well that his wife had died. So, he reached at the spot. There was no [2025:RJ-JP:22546-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLA-584/2001] quarrel between him and his wife. 5-6 years passed since their marriage but they did not have any child. The accused-respondent did not produce any oral evidence but got exhibited documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/ 3 in his defence. 5. Learned trial court, thereafter, proceeded to hear the arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, appreciated the evidence available on record and delivered the impugned judgment dated 12.04.2001, acquitting the accused- respondent for the alleged offence as stated above. Aggrieved with the same, present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State before this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant – State of Rajasthan has submitted that prosecution has produced cogent evidence on record and established commission of murder of Tammu Kanwar, by the accused-respondent, but the trial Court has erred in not believing the testimony deposed by the prosecution witnesses and wrongly acquitted accused-respondent for alleged offence without any cogent reason. He has, therefore, prayed that this appeal filed by the appellant-State may be allowed and the judgment passed by the trial Court be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has opposed appeal and submitted that prosecution utterly failed to establish motive of the accused- respondent to commit murder of his wife. There is no eye-witness of incident of murder in this case. No recovery was affected from [2025:RJ-JP:22546-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLA-584/2001] the accused-respondent. The F.I.R. was lodged after four days of the incident. He has also submitted that the trial court after appreciating the entire material as well as evidence available on record has rightly passed the judgment impugned herein, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through impugned judgment and have minutely sifted through the evidence available on record. 10. In the instant case, admittedly, neither there is any eye- witness of alleged incident of murder of Tamo Kanwar @ Tammu Kanwar nor anyone is stated to have last seen the deceased with the accused-respondent and the entire prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. 11. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence has been very well crystalised in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116. A close analysis of said decision would show that following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the [2025:RJ-JP:22546-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLA-584/2001] accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 12. In the light of these guiding principles, let us examine the evidence in the present case. 13. In the instant case, the prosecution has come with the case that accused-respondent used to beat the deceased as he was having illicit affair with some other girl, so he was having motive to murder the deceased. In this regard, a perusal of the statement of P.W. 1 – Ladu Singh reveals that in his examination- in-chief, though, has stated that Nand Singh was having illicit relations with some other girl but this fact was not mentioned in the statement of Ladu Singh recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1). In this context, it is also noteworthy to mention that this witness admitted in his cross-examination that he neither informed the community members nor reported to the police about illicit relationship of Nand Singh with any other girl. It is also noteworthy to mention here that witness P.W.4 - Jabbar Singh, in whose factory the deceased was working, also admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen Nand Singh coming and going with any girl. P.W.13 - Devi Singh, who was the Investigation Officer in the case, also admitted in his cross- examination that he did not find out from the investigation that Nand Singh had illicit relationship with any girl of Rawat caste. 14. It is also relevant to mention here that P.W. 1 – Ladu Singh has, though, stated in his examination-in-chief that when he and his father Samrath Singh went to Gadhi Arjunpura, Bhagwan Singh met them and informed that his sister Tammu Kanwar was [2025:RJ-JP:22546-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLA-584/2001] strangulated by Nand Singh, but Bhagwan Singh was not produced by the prosecution in the witness box to corroborate this fact. 15. Witnesses P.W. 1 - Ladu Singh and P.W. 2 – Bhanwar Singh have deposed in their statements that Tammu used to tell that Nand Singh did not treat her like his wife and harassed and beat her. Nand Singh used to tell Tammu Kanwar that he would kill her. However, P.W. 1- Ladu Singh in his cross-examination has admitted that he did not give any report to the Mangaliyawas Police Station about beating given to the deceased by accused- respondent. P.W. 2 – Bhanwar Singh has also admitted in his cross-examination that he never lodged a complaint with the police that his niece Tammu Kanwar was beaten by the accused. He also stated that he had mentioned about ill-treatment with Tammu by accused in his police statement (Ex.D/2) but the same was not written by the police. Although, P.W. 5 - Gheesu Singh stated in his statement that Tammu Kanwar told him that Nand Singh used to beat her and did not treat her like his wife but he also admitted in his cross-examination that it was told to him by his wife. His wife's name is Gulab Kanwar, but in this case, Gulab Kanwar was not produced by the prosecution in the Court to corroborate the aforesaid fact. Similarly, P.W. 5 – Gheesu Singh stated in his examination-in-chief that Raghuveer Singh and other villagers informed that Nand Singh strangulated Tammu Kanwar and ablazed her. However, Raghuveer Singh too was not produced by the prosecution in the witness box. P.W. 6 – Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar w/o Janak Singh and P.W. 7 – Man Kanwar stated [2025:RJ-JP:22546-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLA-584/2001] in their examination-in-chief that Tammu Kanwar informed that her husband did not talk to her since the date of marriage. She also used to tell that her husband’s behaviour towards her was not cordial and he did not treat her like his wife. He used to beat her. However, in her cross-examination, P.W. 6 – Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar w/o Janak Singh has admitted that her house was situated far from Tammu Kanwar’s house; she did not know that the houses near Tammu Kanwar’s house belonged to which Rajputs because she also did not come out of the house. She admitted that she did not see that Nand Singh beat the deceased. She was in talking terms with Tammu Kanwar's parents. She never told her parents that Nand Singh did not treat Tammu Kanwar like his wife and was harassing her. P.W. 7 – Man Kanwar has also stated in her cross- examination that her house was around 15-20 houses away from Tammu Kanwar’s house. She never saw any quarrel or beating between husband and wife. She did not know name of any other woman, with whom Nand Singh had illicit relationship. P.W. 8 – Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar w/o Shri Devi Singh and P.W. 9 – Smt. Rajkanwar, though, stated in their examination-in-chief that Tammu told that Nand Singh used to beat her; Tammu Kanwar used to tell that Nand Singh was in love with some Rawat’s daughter and that is why he did not talk to her. However, P.W. 8 – Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar in her cross-examination, admitted that she did not complain about Nand Singh’s behaviour to her mother and the fact that Nand Singh had love affair with Rawat's daughter, he used to beat Tammu and did not behave her well. These facts were also not mentioned in her police statement (Ex.D/3). P.W. 9 [2025:RJ-JP:22546-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLA-584/2001] – Smt. Raj Kanwar also admitted in her cross-examination that she did not see that Nand Singh beat Tammu Kanwar. She deposed on the basis of assumption and hearsay that Nand Singh used to beat her. She did not complain to the society about Nand Singh harassing Tammu nor did she file a case against him. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to death of deceased, no complaint or report with regard to any incident of beating was submitted to the police. Therefore, the prosecution story that accused was having illicit relationship with another girl, so he used to beat the deceased, was not proved against accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubt 16. So far as verification of place of incident is concerned, a perusal of the record reveals that verification of place of occurrence at the instance of accused-respondent was conducted vide Ex.P/11 dated 03.08.1999, whereas, a perusal of the site plan of place of occurrence (Ex.P/9) would show that during the course of investigation, the police inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site-plan on 01.08.1999. Thus, it has been established that the place of incident was well within the knowledge of the investigation officer from 01.08.1999 itself. Therefore, mere verification of place of occurrence at the instance of accused-respondents too is of no worth credence. 17. It is also relevant to note here that in the case in hand, deceased was stated to be murdered on 26.07.1999, whereas the FIR has been instituted by the complainant as late as on 30.07.1999 i.e. after almost four days of the incident. It is worth mentioning in this context that witness P.W. 13 – Devi Singh, the [2025:RJ-JP:22546-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLA-584/2001] Investigation Officer, accepted in his cross-examination that at the time of handing over dead body of the deceased, her father was present and with his consent, her father handed over dead body to her brother-in-law for performing the last rites. At the time of handing over dead body, her father did not submit any report nor did he make any oral complaint. There is no explanation forthcoming on the record with regard to delay in lodging the FIR which further raises serious doubt regarding entire prosecution story. 18. So far as recovery of plastic drum, jaricane, plastic cane and broken pieces of bangles etc. vide Ex.P/6 is concerned, a perusal of the record would reveal that no finger prints from recovered articles were collected by the police to establish that same were used by the accused-respondent in the crime, nor there is any evidence on record to establish that pieces of broken bangles were of the deceased. Thus, from the above evidence available on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove its story against accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the judgment impugned passed by the trial court. 20. Accordingly, present criminal appeal is dismissed. The Judgment dated 12.04.2001 passed by the trial court is affirmed. 21. The record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J INDER/19