[2025:RJ-JP:13827-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 189/1999 State Of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus 1. Ramesh son of Chatra, Resident of Village Ramnagar, PS Ravanjana, Doongar (Expired) 2. Mukesh son of Madholal, Resident of Village Ramnagar, PS Ravanjana, Doongar District Sawaimadhopur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, GA-cum-AAG Mr. Manvendra Singh, Dy.G.A. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst.G.A. Ms. Neha Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 26/03/2025 This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 378(i) & (iii) Cr.P.C. on behalf of State against the judgment dated 12.08.1998 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No.30/98, whereby the respondent No.1-Ramesh has been acquitted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and respondent No.2-Mukesh has been acquitted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Prosecution story in brief is as under:- Complainant-Babu Lal submitted a written report on 01.03.1998 at Police Station Ravanjana, Doongar to the effect that on 27.02.1998 at about 12.00 (Noon) Ramesh, Mukesh and [2025:RJ-JP:13827-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLA-189/1999] Ramavtar had gone to the forest for hunting. Ramesh was having a double barreled gun. When they did not return in the night, family members of Ramavtar went out to search them but they were not found. On the next day when Mukesh and Ramesh came to the village and Mukesh was asked about Ramavtar, he informed before the villagers that Ramavtar was shot dead by Ramesh Bairwa through a gun shot injury, his dead body was lying in Pahari near Devpura Dam and gun was also lying there. When they went to the spot with Mukesh, dead body of Ramavtar was found there and gun was also lying there. On that basis, FIR was lodged for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Ramesh and Mukesh for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sawai Madhopur had committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. The trial court framed charges against Ramesh for the offence under Section 302 IPC and against Mukesh for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Respondents denied charges levelled against them and pleaded trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1-Babu Lal Bairwa, PW2-Hazari Lal, PW3- Ram Rattan, PW4-Ramphool, PW5- Satyanarayan, PW6-Mohan Singh, PW7-Moti Lal, PW8-Panchu Lal, PW9-Dhana Lal, PW10-Nanda, PW11-Ram Kumar, PW12- Kesar, PW13-Bharatraj, PW14- Ram Kumar, PW15-Dr. R.P. Gupta and PW16-Onkar Singh. Statement of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Respondents in their statements stated that they had been falsely implicated and had not adduced defence evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:13827-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLA-189/1999] After hearing the final arguments, the trial court passed judgment dated 12.08.1998 and acquitted the respondents. Learned GA-cum-AAG has submitted a report dated 22.02.2025 furnished to him by the Administrator, Gram Panchayat, Ravanjana Doongar, according to which respondent No.2- Mukesh is alive. The said report is taken on record. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1-Ramesh expired and appeal against the respondent No.1-Ramesh stood abated. Learned GA-cum-AAG stated that trial court had committed an error in acquitting the respondents. Trial court had not appreciated the evidence led by the witnesses. It was proved beyond the reasonable doubt that deceased and respondents went to the forest for hunting and Ramesh was having a gun. Witnesses had last seen both the accused persons with deceased Ramavtar and gun was recovered on the spot where dead body of Ramavtar was lying. Respondent No.2-Mukesh confessed that Ramesh had dead shot Ramavtar through a gun shot injury. As per the post mortem report, deceased Ramavtar died due to the gunshot injury. So, findings arrived at by the trial court be set aside and respondent No.2-Mukesh be convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the State and submitted that the trial court rightly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution because there was no direct evidence that Ramesh dead shot deceased Ramavtar. Statement of respondent No.2-Mukesh was not recorded before the court below, so said [2025:RJ-JP:13827-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLA-189/1999] confessional statement is not admissible in the evidence. Ramesh died during the pendency of the appeal. There is no evidence against respondent No.2-Mukesh that he helped Ramesh in committing murder of Ramavtar. So, the trial court rightly acquitted the respondents. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned GA- cum-AAG as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned judgment. It is an admitted position that present case rests on extra judicial confession made by respondent No.2-Mukesh. Ramesh against whom the allegation of committing murder of Ramavtar was levelled, died during pendency of the appeal. Prosecution failed to adduce any evidence that respondent No.2-Mukesh had ever helped Ramesh in committing murder of Ramavtar. FIR was lodged after a delay of three days. So, in our considered opinion trial court had not committed any error in acquitting the respondents. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/Avinash/6