[2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 136/2018 Bhawani Singh @ Mukesh Shekhawat S/o Shri Ram Kumar Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Badi Jodi, Police Station Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur, Presently Residing At 6, Durga Vihar Colony, Bakeri Walo Ki Gali, Police Station Sadar, Jaipur (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ---Accused-Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma with Ms. Kamini Pareek, Shri Gaurav Sharma, Shri Jitendra Choudhary and Shri Sarthak Choubey. For Respondent(s) : Shri Amit Kumar Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Date of Conclusion of Arguments : : 28/04/2026 Judgment Reserved On : : 28/04/2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : : Full Judgment Judgment Pronounced On : : 30 /04/2026 Per Hon’ble Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. Under challenge in the instant appeal is the judgement dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short-`the learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No.2/14 whereby, the accused-appellant (for short- `the appellant’) has been convicted and vide order dated 06.03.2018, sentenced as under: [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (2 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] 1. Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,00,000/-; in default whereof, three years’ additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Section 201 IPC: Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-; in default whereof, one year’s addi- tional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences to run concurrently The relevant facts in brief are that on finding a ‘severed human head’ of an unidentified person near Railway Line, Ajmer Pulia, Jaipur, an FIR No.323 dated 27.12.2013 came to be lodged by Shri Mahesh Joshi-Sub Inspector, GRP Station, Jaipur at Police Station GRP, Jaipur under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against unknown persons. After investigation, the appellant as also co- accused Mohammad Asif were charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. The co-accused being juvenile, his trial was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur. Charges under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC were framed against the appellant. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove. It may be pertinent to observe here that vide order dated 22.09.2022, co-accused has been convicted by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. Assailing the impugned judgement, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that findings of the learned trial court are based on conjectures and surmises and he has been convicted without there being any legally admissible evidence available on record against him. He contended that relying on the testimony of [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (3 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] Deepak (PW7), Roli @ Neetu (PW11) and Shakuntala (PW30), it was held by the learned trial court that he was “seen last” in the company of the deceased whereas, they have claimed to have seen the deceased going with him on 25.12.2013 at about 10- 10.30 AM and his severed head was found on 27.12.2013, i.e., after two days of the “last seen” and in view of large interregnum time lag, this evidence was rendered of no significance. He further contended that the second circumstance relied upon by the learned trial court against him was recovery of body parts of the deceased at his behest as also recovery of blood smeared articles allegedly from his residential house. He contended that since, the body parts were recovered from an open place accessible to all, this recovery does not inspire confidence. He submitted that so far as recovery of incriminating articles from his house is concerned, the prosecution did not lead any evidence to establish that the subject house, as a matter of fact, was either under his ownership or possession. Further, learned counsel canvassed that the prosecution has failed to specify the place where the deceased was murdered. Inviting attention towards the site plan (Ex.P6), he contended that in it, the place of murder committed allegedly by him either alone or with co-accused, was not reflected. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, the judgement impugned dated 27.02.2018 be quashed and set aside and he may be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the submissions and supporting the findings recorded by the learned trial court, contended that the learned trial court has held the appellant guilty of the charges framed against him based on [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (4 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] appreciation of cogent evidence available on record. He submitted that the deceased was `seen last’ in the company of the appellant on 25.12.2013 and although, the severed head of the deceased was found on 27.12.2013 but, the autopsy report (Ex.P23) dated 30.12.2013 reflects that death had occurred around 5-6 days prior to the postmortem examination of the body which comes to about 25.12.2013. With regard to submission of learned counsel for the appellant as to recovery of the body parts of the deceased from an open place, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the same were stuffed in a jute sack which was sealed and therefore, the learned trial court has rightly relied upon the recovery as it was sufficiently concealed. He further contended that the prosecution was able to establish that the house-the scene of crime, was under the ownership and possession of the appellant. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Heard. Considered. As per the prosecution case, the deceased-Neeraj Singh was brother-in-law of the appellant being brother of appellant’s wife, the appellant had fraudulently obtained two blank stamp papers worth Rs.10/- each signed by Smt. Shakuntla and Smt. Roli @ Neetu-mother and sister of the deceased respectively and they had an apprehension that the same could be used by the appellant to deprive them of their immovable property. When the same were demanded from the appellant, under the pretext of returning them, the appellant took the deceased on 25.12.2013 along with him on a motorcycle and committed his murder along with the co- accused. [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (5 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] The prosecution story begins from registration of the FIR No.323/13 on 27.12.2013 lodged by a Sub-Inspector, General Railway Police, Jaipur wherein, it was stated that they found a severed head of an unknown person near Railway Line at Ajmer Pulia, Railway Station, Jaipur along with a blood stained plastic sack. From the postmortem report of the body of deceased (Ex.P23) as well as from the testimony of Dr. Deepali Pathak (PW9) and Dr. Nandlal Disaniya (PW29)- the members of the Medical Board which conducted the autopsy, it is proved that the body of the deceased was found cut into 6 pieces; head, torso and all four limbs separate and there were as many as 17 injuries on the body. About 7 injuries were found to be anti-mortem in nature whereas, remaining were, postmortem in nature including severance of various body parts from each other. In view of the aforesaid, it is found to be an established case of homicidal death; rather, a brutal murder. Indisputably, it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. A perusal of the judgement impugned dated 27.02.2018 reveals that the learned trial court has relied upon the following circumstances to connect the appellant with the offences: (1) the last seen; (2) recovery of incriminating evidence; (3) motive. In its much celebrated judgement in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra: (1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases 116, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (6 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] down following cardinal principles to be taken into consideration while considering the case based on circumstantial evidence: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the con- clusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a gram- matical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0167/1973: 1973 CriLJ 1783 where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be con- sistent 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 conclu- sive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hy- pothesis 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 accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (7 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. If the evidence in the instant case is tested on the anvil of the aforesaid golden principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, following situation emerges: So far as last seen evidence is concerned, the prosecution case rests upon the testimony of Deepak (PW7), Roli @ Neetu (PW11) and Shakuntala (PW30)-brother, sister and mother of the deceased respectively. Roli @ Neetu also happens to be wife of the appellant. Deepak and Shakuntala have categorically stated in their examination in chief that on 25.12.2013, the appellant took the deceased Neeraj Singh with him at about 10-10.30 AM on a motorcycle under the pretext of returning the blank stamp papers as his friend had come and thereafter, only the severed head of the deceased was found on 27.12.2013. Although, they have been subjected to very exhaustive cross-examination but, were not suggested during it that the appellant did not take the deceased along with him on 25.12.2013 at the given time under the pretext of returning the signed blank stamp papers. It is trite law that if a statement by a witness in his examination-in-chief relating to material aspects of the case is not challenged during his cross- examination, the same is deemed to be admitted by the other side. Further, it may be worthy to note here that while Shakuntala has, in her police statement (Ex.D4) specifically stated that her son Neeraj Singh was taken by the appellant on his motorcycle on 25.12.2013 at about 10-11 AM under the pretext of the returning the stamp papers; but, during her cross examination, instead of [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (8 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] confronting her with this statement, it was suggested that this fact was not mentioned in the Ex.D4. Moreover, on such suggestion, she has categorically asserted that rather than going with the appellant, the deceased was taken away by the appellant. Although, Roli @ Neetu has not stated, specifically, that on 25.12.2013, the appellant took the deceased along with him on the motorcycle but, has stated that the appellant had promised the deceased to return the stamp papers in her name as also in the name of her mother, at his home. In the backdrop of aforesaid evidence, this Court is convinced that the deceased had gone at about 10-11 am on 25.12.2013 with the appellant on his motorcycle. Further, indisputably, after 10-11 AM of 25.12.2013, the deceased was not seen alive and his severed head was found near the Railway Line on 27.12.2013 by the police authorities. In the autopsy report (Ex.P23) dated 30.12.2013, it is mentioned that the deceased had expired within about and around 5-6 days prior to the postmortem examination which stood corroborated from the testimony of Dr. Deepali Pathak (PW9) and Nandlal Disaniya (PW29)-the Members of the Medical Board which conducted the autopsy. In view thereof, the time of murder of the deceased comes around 25.12.2013, i.e., the date on which he was seen last in the company of the appellant. Therefore, this Court finds no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of large time lag in between the evidence of last seen and the recovery of the severed head of the deceased, the evidence looses its significance. [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (9 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] Another circumstance relied upon by the learned trial court to record the finding of conviction of the appellant is the recovery of incriminating evidence either on his disclosure statement or otherwise. As already observed, the severed head of the deceased was found by the police authorities near the Railway Line on 27.12.2013 at about 10.50 AM along with a blood stained gunny bag nearby. The appellant was arrested on 29.12.2013 vide arrest memo-(Ex.P11). On his disclosure statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, vide seizure memo (Ex.P13), five body parts of the deceased were recovered on 29.12.2013. The body parts comprising of a torso and four severed limbs, were stuffed in a jute bag which had to be retrieved by cutting it. The clothes on the body parts as also the jute bag were found to be blood stained. The recovery stood corroborated from the autopsy report (Ex.P23) as also from the testimony of Dr. Deepali Pathak (PW9) who has stated that they received six body parts; one from the GRP Station and rest five, from the Shyam Nagar Police Station and upon examination, the same were found to be of the same person. From the DNA examination report (Ex.P64) also, it was established that the body parts belonged to same person and the DNA obtained from the tooth of the deceased as also from his right femur bone matched with the DNA obtained from the blood samples of Smt. Shakuntala and of Deepak @ Akshay-mother and brother of the deceased respectively. Thus, we find the recovery of body parts of the deceased on the disclosure statement of the appellant to be a strong piece of evidence against him. Although, Gyarsi (PW8), a Constable in the Shyam Nagar Police Station and one of the panch witnesses to the seizure memo (Ex.P13) has [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (10 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] stated that the place of recovery was an open place accessible to all but, we do not countenance the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that being so, the recovery is rendered doubtful inasmuch as, from the seizure memo, it is reflected that the body parts were found stuffed in a jute bag which was sealed and was thrown in a pile of garbage. From the site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.P14), it is apparent that it was near the Amanishah Nala with no residence around. Thus, we are convinced that the sack containing the body parts were sufficiently concealed from the public view. Further, we find that vide seizure memo (Ex.P4), on 28.12.2013, a number of incriminating material such as blood smeared soil, blood stained pillows, mattress, axe, spade, a wooden strip, an empty plastic sack, a pant, a shirt and an underwear were found from the rooms situated in the Plot no.6, Durga Vihar Colony, Police Station Sadar, Jaipur, the residential house of the appellant. It is worthy to mention here that the two blank stamp papers each worth Rs.10-Ex.P38 and Ex.P39 bearing the signature of Shakuntala (PW30) and Roli (Ex.PW11) respectively were also recovered from the residence of the appellant. As per the prosecution case, this is the place where the deceased was murdered, was cut to pieces and was taken to be thrown away at different places. It may be pertinent to observe here that as per the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P62), human blood was found on all the articles barring the underwear. As per this report, although, the blood was detected on the axe and the spade but, it was not sufficient to conclude that it was the human blood. Although, it was contended on behalf of the [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (11 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] appellant that the prosecution led no evidence to establish that this place of recovery belonged to him; however, the evidence on record suggests otherwise. All the three witnesses of the “last seen”, i.e., Deepak, Roli @ Neetu and Shakuntala have stated in unison that the deceased was taken by the appellant to his home under the pretext of returning the blank signed stamp papers and they were not confronted at all on this aspect during the cross- examination. Further, vide seizure memo-Ex.P24 dated 03.01.2014, a motorcycle used by the appellant in commission of the offence was recovered on his disclosure statement along with its registration certificate. In the registration certificate, the residential address of the appellant is reflected as 6A, Durga Vihar Colony, Jaipur. Mohammad Istkar (PW21), R/o Plot No.8, Durga Colony Vihar has stated in his examination-in-chief that he knows Bhawani Singh being his neighbour; but, he was not subjected to any cross-examination on behalf of the appellant on this aspect. It is also worthy to mention here that in the arrest memo of the appellant (Ex.P11), he is shown to be the resident of House No.6, Durga Vihar Colony, Police Station Sadar, Jaipur but, it was not challenged by him during trial qua his address. In the conspectus of the aforesaid evidence, we are convinced that from the evidence on record, it was established that the residential house, from where the incriminating material was recovered on 28.12.2013 vide seizure memo (Ex.P4) belonged to the appellant. So far as motive is concerned, it is proved from the material on record that the appellant had obtained two blank stamp papers [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (12 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] each worth Rs.10 duly signed by Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Roli @ Neetu-mother and sister of the deceased respectively which the complainant party apprehended could have been put to misuse by the appellant and under the pretext of returning the same, he had taken the deceased along with him on the fateful day to his house and murdered him. As already observed, the aforesaid two blank stamp papers were also recovered from the residential house of the appellant on 28.12.2013 vide seizure memo-Ex.P4. We also notice another salient aspect of the case not appreciated by the learned trial court. Roli @ Neetu (PW11) has stated, in her examination-in-chief, that on the next day of the appellant taking the deceased along with him, when she asked the appellant about her brother, he told that he has murdered her brother and challenged her to lodge the report wherever she desired. A perusal of her cross-examination reflects that though, it was thoroughly done but, her this deposition was not challenged at all. Further, Deepak as PW7 has also corroborated the aforesaid statement and he was also not subjected to cross-examination on this aspect meaning thereby that the defence has admitted that the appellant made extra- judicial confession to his wife-Roli @ Neetu. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the evidence available on record, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading a complete chain of circumstantial evidence that the appellant had committed murder of the deceased Neeraj Singh and concealed the evidence about commission of the same and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:18009-DB] (13 of 13) [CRLAD-136/2018] Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed and the findings recorded by the learned trial court in Sessions Case No.2/14 vide judgement 27.02.2018 are confirmed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J RS /95-s