[2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No.269/2020 Ramkumar @ Ramveer S/o Roshanlal, R/o Mudota, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. Recent Address Tenant In House Of Shri Bishanlal Somwanshi Mehtab Singh Ka Nohra Alwar (Appellant Is Confined In Central Jail Alwar) ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr.Aditya Narayan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU JUDGMENT Reserved on: 08/08/2025 Pronounced on: 13/08/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- This appeal is preferred by Ramkumar @ Ramveer (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) against the judgment dated 03.09.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge No.2, Alwar in Sessions Case No.42/2014, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC. Vide order of even date, the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. The facts as set up by the prosecution are that on complaint of Kamal, brother of Geeta (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) an FIR No.325 dated 29.12.2013 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Alwar under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. As per the complainant, Geeta (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was married to the appellant few years back and there [2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020] are two children out of the wedlock. The couple was staying on rent in Mehtab Singh Ka Nohra, Alwar. The elder sister of the complainant Babita had taken room on first floor on rent in the same premises. Allegations are that the appellant tortured the deceased and demanded dowry. On 29.12.2013 at about 8.30 A.M the deceased was tortured for dowry and killed by giving a griddle (Tawa) blow on her head. The charge-sheet against the appellant was filed u/s 498A, 304B & 302 IPC and after supplying copy of challan the trial was committed to Sessions Court. Charges were framed u/s 498A, 304B and in alternate u/s 302 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and exhibited seventeen documents to prove the case. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant denied the allegations and examined himself in defence. The trial Court after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence concluded that the prosecution failed to prove second marriage of the deceased with the appellant and the ingredients of dowry death for invoking Sections 304B and 498A IPC but the appellant was convicted u/s 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that deposition of PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi was not reliable. The deposition of PW-9 Babita, PW-16 Surendra Singh (Investigating Officer) and the site plan (Ex.P.3) are relied upon to contend that apart from the door there was no entry to the room of Babita, the windows had grills and it was not proved that PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi entered the room after breaking the grill. Submission is that recovery of griddle (Tawa) at the instance of the appellant [2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020] is not an evidence of it having been used in the incident by the appellant. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi sole eye witness to the incident attributed specific role to the appellant of giving griddle blow on the head of the deceased. Submission is that deposition of PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi was supported by testimony of his father PW-2 Bisan Lal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. The case set up by the prosecution is that appellant and the deceased were residing together in a rented accommodation on ground floor belonging to PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi. The elder sister of the deceased Babita had taken room on rent on the first floor in the same premises. On 28.12.2013, there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased, the latter was turned out of the house and Babita took the deceased and her children to her room. In the next morning the appellant went to the room of Babita, everybody had tea. Babita went to her work at 8:00 AM. PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi at 8.30 AM hearing the screams went to the room of Babita, which was bolted. On entering the room from the window, he saw that the deceased was lying on the floor and the appellant was hitting on her head with a griddle. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The appellant was apprehended by the police from his room on the ground floor. The blood stained griddle was recovered on 30.12.2013 from the room of appellant. [2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020] 7. The case of the prosecution for conviction u/s 302 IPC is based upon the testimony of PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi, the sole eye-witness. The other witnesses PW-2 Bisan Lal, PW-3 Kamal (complainant), PW-5 Radhey Shyam, PW-6 Seema (mother of the deceased), PW-7 Baljeet and PW-9 Babita (sister of the deceased) had not seen the incident. 8. PW-4 Raju was witness to the panchnama. PW-8 Shiv Singh and PW-11 Jhamman were witnesses to the memo of recovery of marriage contract. PW-10 Dr. Dhurav Singh conducted the postmortem. PW-12 Satish Kumar, PW-13 Shobha and PW-14 Santosh were the formal witnesses. 9. The cause of death as per the postmortem report (‘PMR’) is Coma, as a result of multiple ante-mortem bodily injuries, sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 10. PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi testified that on 29.12.2013 at about 8.30 AM on hearing the screams from the room of Babita and finding the door bolted, he entered the room through window. In the room he saw that the deceased was lying on the floor and the appellant was giving blow with griddle on her head. The appellant thereafter hid himself in his room and PW-1 gave information to the sister of the deceased. 11. PW-2 Bisan Lal (father of PW-1) deposed that at the time of incident, on hearing the screams he tried to go upstairs and saw the appellant was coming down with a griddle in his hand and thereafter hid in his room. The appellant was followed by PW-1 who told him that the appellant killed his wife with the griddle. 12. From perusal of the site-plan (Ex.P.3) and deposition of Babita the undisputed fact emerges that there was one door and [2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020] two windows in the room. The windows opened towards the roadside. Babita deposed that the grills were mounted in the windows. 13. PW-16 Surendra Singh (Investigating Officer) in cross-examination stated that windows in the room of Babita on the first floor opened towards the road and there was no entry to the room except the door. I.O. deposed that no window or door was found to be broken. 14. The eye-witness PW-1 specifically stated that he entered the room from window as the room was bolted. This statement is in contradiction with the site plan, testimony of Babita and the I.O. The room of Babita which was on the first floor had two windows opening towards roadside and fitted with grills but there is no proof that the grills were broken. The presence of the eye-witness in the room as set up by the prosecution is not proved. 15. PW-2 Bisan Lal had not witnessed the incident and his statement does not enhance the case of the prosecution. PW-2 saw his son PW-1 Rajendra Singh Somvanshi and the appellant coming downstairs and the appellant was carrying griddle in his hand. 16. Another aspect to be considered is that the accused was arrested from his room and not from the room of Babita. The blood stained griddle was recovered from the room of appellant on 30.12.2013. No FSL report of the blood-stains on the griddle was produced in the trial. No fingerprints from the griddle were taken. The I.O. stated that neither the fingerprints nor footprints of the accused or any other person present at spot were taken. The I.O. deposed that he did not remember whether there were [2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020] blood-stains on the floor, door or walls of the room. PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi stated that there were no blood-stains on the clothes of the appellant. Blood stained sweater of the deceased was recovered but no FSL report of blood-stains on sweater of the deceased was produced. 17. There is nothing produced on the record that the clothes of the appellant were blood-stained and were recovered. This needs to be considered in the backdrop that consequent to injuries inflicted there were three lacerated wounds on the head of the deceased and one of the injury exposed brain matter, yet no evidence of blood splattered on floor, walls or on cloth of appellant was collected and produced. 18. The law is well-settled that the prosecution has to prove the case to the hilt and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhagirath & Ors. reported in [(1999)5 SCC 96] wherein the Court held :- “But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to the criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused.” [2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020] 19. There cannot be quarrel with the proposition that number of witnesses is not relevant for proving the case of the prosecution. Even one witness or limited number of witness can be sufficient. What is important is the reliability of the witness. In eventuality of the witness not being wholly dependable, such oral testimony needs corroboration by other evidence or witness. 20. The Supreme Court in the case of Govindaraju Alias Govinda Vs. State By Sriramapuram Police Station and Anr. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722 considered the earlier judgment in Lallu Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2003) 2 SCC 401 dealt with the categories of reliability of a witness and held:- “24. It is a settled proposition of law of evidence that it is not the number of witnesses that matters but it is the substance. It is also not necessary to examine a large number of witnesses if the prosecution can bring home the guilt of the accused even with a limited number of witnesses. In Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand [(2003) 2 SCC 401, this Court had classified the oral testimony of the witnesses into three categories: (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the third category of witnesses, the court has to be cautious and see if the statement of such witness is corroborated, either by the other witnesses or by other documentary or expert evidence. 21. In the present case there is only one eye witness who stated to have entered the room of Babita through window and after entering the room had seen the incident. As discussed above the presence of PW-1 in room at the time of incident is clouded with doubt. The deposition of PW-1 that appellant killed the deceased [2025:RJ-JP:30750-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLAD-269/2020] by giving griddle below on her head remained uncorroborated. The testimony of other witnesses is based upon hearsay. Non production of FSL report of recovered blood stained griddle and failure to pick fingerprints from griddle critically dented the case of prosecution and the oral testimony of PW-1 was not corroborated. 22. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant is acquitted giving benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment convicting the appellant u/s 302 IPC and the order of sentence are quashed. 23. The conviction of the appellant is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The appeal is allowed. The appellant who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 24. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 BNSS, appellant Ramkumar @ Ramveer is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and surety bond of the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, appellant Ramkumar @ Ramveer on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Chandan/4 Reportable: Yes