[2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 397/2018 1. Dalchand @ Bablu S/o Ramsingh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Vill/ward No 18 Ps Nala Bazar Ps Kaman Dist.bharatpur (At Present Confined At Centre Jail Jaipur Since Dt. 22.04.2012) 2. Padam Singh @ Pappi S/o Ramsingh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Vill/ward No 18 Ps Nala Bazar Ps Kaman Dist. Bharatpur (At Present Confined At Centre Jail Jaipur Since Dt. 22.04.2012) Accused-Appellants Versus State Of Rajasthan Through PP, Raj. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 450/2018 Anju Rohilla W/o Late Girraj Prasad, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Rohilla (Chippi), R/o Nala Bajar, Kaman, District Bharatpur. ----Injured-Complainant-Appellant-Victim Versus 1. Meera Kumari W/o Manoj Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Indra Enclave, Police Station Phase-II, Delhi. 2. Vijaya Kumari D/o Ram Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village/ward No.18, Police Station Nala Bajar, Kaman, Village/city Kaman, District Bharatpur. Accused-Respondents 3. Central Bureau of Investigation Through PP ----Respondent D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 330/2023 1. Vidhya Devi (Since Deceased), 1/1. Rameswar Dayal Rohilla S/o Late Khem Chand, R/o 51/77, Rajat Path Mansarovar Jaipur 1/2. Rajendra Prasad Rohilla S/o Late Khem Chand, R/o Nala Bazar, Kamah 1/3. Anju Devi @ Durga W/o Late Girraj Prasad Rohilla [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (2 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] ----Injured-Victim-Appellants Versus 1. Dal Chand @ Bablu S/o Ram Singh, R/o Ward No 18 Ps Nala Bajar Kaman Vill. / City Kaman Dist. Bharatpur 2. Padam Singh @ Pappi @ Bada Bablu S/o Ram Singh, R/o Ward No 18 Police Station Nala Bajar Kaman Vill. / City Kaman Dist. Bharatpur 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma with Ms. Kamini Pareek For Respondent(s) : Shri Shyam Singh Yadav Spl. PP (CBI) with Shri Tarun Yadav Shri Rajeev Surana, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Shri Rajendra Rohilla Shri Anuj Rohilla Shri Umag Jain Ms. Muskan Verma Shri Shubham Rohilla and Shri Siddharth Sogani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment Date of Conclusion of Arguments : : 07/04/2026 Judgment Reserved On : : 07/04/2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : : Full Judgment Judgment Pronounced On : : 16/04/2026 Per Hon’ble Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. All the three criminal appeals are directed against the judgement dated 25.7.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Cases No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur (in short-`the learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No.02/2014 whereby, while acquitting the accused Kumari Vijaya and Meera Kumari @ Meenu of the charges [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (3 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] under Sections 148, 120B, 452, 302 or 302/149 or 302/120B, 307 or 307/149 or 307/120B and 323 or 323/149 IPC, the accused- appellants Dalchand and Padam Singh @ Pappi have been convicted and sentenced as under: 1. Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment. 2. Section 307 or 307/34, 307/120B IPC: Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default whereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment. 3. Section 452 IPC: Three years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default whereof, ten days’ additional simple imprisonment. 4. Section 120B IPC: Five years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default whereof, ten days’ additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences to run concurrently. It may be pertinent to observe here that although, the appellants were convicted under Section 302 or Section 302/34 or 302/120B IPC but, it appears that on account of a clerical error, they were sentenced only under Section 302 IPC. While, the appeal no.397/2018 has been preferred by the accused-appellants (for short-`the appellants’) against the judgment of their conviction, the appeal no.450/2018 has been preferred by the injured-complainant against acquittal of the co- accused Kumari Vijaya and Meera Kumari @ Meenu and the Criminal Appeal no.85/2019 has been preferred by the injured- [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (4 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] victim seeking enhancement of sentence for the appellants- Dalchand and Padam Singh. The relevant facts in brief are that based on the parcha bayan dated 29.07.2010 (Ex.P1) of Anju Rohilla (PW1) made at Heritage Hospital, Agra, an FIR No.443 dated 30.07.2010 came to be registered at Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 307 and 302 IPC. It was alleged therein that on account of enmity, the appellants along with co-accused Paras Ram and Praveen came to their home in the morning of 29.07.2010 at about 7:45-8:00 am and opened gunfire resulting into death of her father-in-law-Khem Chand, her husband- Girraj Prasad and gunshot injuries to her brother-in-law- Rajendra Prasad, self and her sister-in-law. It was further alleged that a gunshot was also fired at her mother-in-law but, she ducked. Allegations against Vijaya and Meera were made of inflicting injuries with lathies. After investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted under various provisions of IPC alongwith co-accused. Charges under Sections 148, 120B, 452, 302 or 302/149 or 302/120B, 307, 307/120B or 307/149, 323 or 323/149 were framed against them. After trial, they have been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove. Assailing the impugned judgment, Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, although, the deceased as well as the injured Rajendra Prasad were Advocates. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel submitted that though, the incident is alleged to have taken place at about 7:45-8:00 am on 29.03.2010 [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (5 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] and as per the prosecution case, the police had immediately reached there but, the FIR came to be registered as late as on 30.07.2010 based on the parcha bayan of Anju made at about 8.00 pm, i.e., 12 hours after the incident. He canvassed that this unexplained delay raises a serious doubt as to veracity of the prosecution case. Learned counsel further submitted that not only there was delay in registration of the FIR but, there was also delay in recording the statement of the eye-witnesses S/Shri Jamna Prasad (PW14), Badleram Meena (PW15) and Chandrabhan Sharma (PW16) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as late as on 14.04.2011, which seriously eroded their credibility. He contended that although, the parties were neighbour and knew each other very well still, the FIR lodged by one of the injured eye witnesses lacked name of the appellant-Padam Singh in it and only as an afterthought, he has falsely been implicated in this case. Shri Rajesh submitted that while recording the findings of their conviction, the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the deposition of the prosecution witnesses including that of injured eye witnesses namely; Anju Rohilla (PW1), Pramila Rohilla (PW2) and Rajendra Prasad Rohilla (PW3), was full of contradictions and improvements on material aspects of the case and it was not safe to hold them guilty based on such sketchy evidence. Learned counsel argued that although, it was alleged that they fired a number of gunshots but, only seven bullets were [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (6 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] recovered from the place of incident which belies the prosecution case. Shri Rajesh Sharma contended that there was no recovery of any incriminating material from their possession and the learned trial Court has recorded their conviction based on conjectures and surmises without there being any legally admissible evidence against them. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 25.07.2018 be quashed and set aside to the extent of their conviction and they may be acquitted of the charges framed against them. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor, opposing the submissions, contended that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on appreciation of cogent material on record in the light of settled legal principles. He submitted that the prosecution was able to establish guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the findings warrant no interference. Shri Rajeev Surana, learned senior counsel for the complainant, submitted that there was no delay in registration of the FIR. He submitted that two of the family members died at the spot on account of gunshot injuries and remaining family members were seriously injured due to assault by the appellants along with co-accused and they had to rush first to local Hospital at Kaman, thereafter to RBM Hospital, Bharatpur from where, looking to their serious condition, were taken to the Hospital at Agra. He submitted that in these circumstances, it could not be held that there was any delay in lodging the FIR. In so far as delay [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (7 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] in recording Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the eye witnesses is concerned, learned senior counsel submitted that being dissatisfied with the investigation by the State Agency, they had filed the S.B. Civil Misc. Petition No.2472/2010 before his Court wherein, vide its order dated 28.03.2011, the learned Single Judge of this Court transferred the investigation to CBI and once the CBI took over the investigation, they recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including that of eye witnesses namely; S/Shri Jamna Prasad, Badleram Meena and Chandrabhan Sharma. Inviting attention of this Court towards the statement of Anju Rohilla (PW1), he would submit that she has explained that Padam Singh @ Pappi was also known as Bablu as named in the FIR and she was not put to any cross- examination on this aspect. In so far as recovery of 7 bullets is concerned, Shri Rajeev submitted that from the prosecution evidence, it was reflected that some of the bullets were found embedded in the body of the deceased/injured which explained recovery of only 7 bullets from the place of incident despite firing of multiple gun shots by the appellants and the co-accused. Lastly, he submitted that there were no contradictions or improvements in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses touching the material aspects of the case so as to doubt their credibility. Referring to and relying upon the deposition of the injured eye witnesses namely; Anju Rohilla, Pramila Rohilla and Rajendra Prasad Rohilla, Shri Surana canvassed that they have given graphic details of the manner in which the offences were committed by the accused-appellants and the same was creditworthy. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (8 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] Heard. Considered. From the testimony of Dr. Pramod Bansal (PW11), Head of the Medical Board which conducted the autopsy, it was established that Girraj and Khemchand expired on account of multiple gunshot injuries. From the postmortem report (Ex.P24) of the body of the deceased-Girraj and the X-ray report (Ex.P25), it was reflected that three bullets were found in his body and cause of death, as per the opinion of the Medical Board, was hemorrhage and shock due to firearm injuries to lungs, heart and intestine. Similarly, as per the postmortem report (Ex.P29) of the body of Khemchand and X-ray Report (Ex.P30), one bullet was found in his body with two entry and exit wounds of firearm and the cause of death, as per the opinion of the Medical Board, was hemorrhage and shock due to firearm injuries to skull, brain, neck, face, intestine and lever. Thus, it was an established case of homicidal death which was not even disputed by the appellants inasmuch as the prosecution witnesses were suggested during their cross- examination that the deceased were shot dead by some unidentified person/a gang who had rivalry with them. Similarly, Dr. Ashok Mathur (PW12)-a Medical Jurist in RBM Hospital, Bharatpur, upon examination of Anju Rohilla (PW1), found two injuries on her body, simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. He has also examined Shri Khemchand and found multiple gunshot injuries on his body. On 29.07.2010, he has also examined Smt. Pramila @ Pappi and found one entry wound and corresponding exit wound on her body with gunshot. Dr. Devendra Gupta (PW19), a General Surgeon and Medico Legal Consultant at [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (9 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] Heritage Hospital, Agra, upon examination of Rajendra Prasad Rohilla, vide injury report-Ex.P35, found him to be grievously injured from gunshot which was found to be dangerous to life. He has also examined Smt. Pramila and found, as per the injury report (Ex.P10), to be grievously injured from the gunshot which was opined to be dangerous to life. Dr. Rajkumar Choudhary (PW33)-the Radiologist at RBM Hospital, Bharatpur has proved the X-ray plates of Smt. Premlata, Smt. Anju and Shri Rajendra. Therefore, from the aforesaid evidence, it was established, beyond reasonable doubt, that Anju Rohilla, Pramila Rohilla and Rajendra Prasad Rohilla received simple as well as grievous injuries on account of assault upon them and the injuries to Pramila Rohilla and Rajendra Prasad Rohilla were opined to be dangerous to life. Now the moot question before this Court is whether the prosecution has been able to connect the appellants with the aforesaid murder and the attempt to murder of other person. Genesis of the prosecution case is the parcha bayan (Ex.P1) made by Anju Rohilla wherein, she has stated that when she was cleaning the house at about 7.45-8.00 am on 29.07.2010, her mother-in-law Vidhya Devi and sister-in-law Pramila were at home and her husband-Giraraj Prasad, brother-in-law-Rajendra Prasad and father-in-law-Khem Chand were in office situated in the house. She stated that upon hearing the gunshots, she rushed to the office and found that her father-in-law and husband were shot by Paras Ram and Dal Chand with katta (country made pistol). It [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (10 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] was further alleged that Rajendra and other person were shot with firearm by Praveen and Bablu. It was averred that when her sister-in-law tried to save her, Praveen also shot her with firearm. It was also alleged that her mother-in-law was also fired at; but, she ducked. The allegation of inflicting lathi blows was levelled against Meera and Vijaya. It was averred that the accused party had assaulted them due to enmity on account of fire work case as also on account of dispute over their gali. The complainant, as PW1, has reiterated the allegations in her examination-in-chief. With regard to absence of name of Padam Singh @ Pappi in her parcha bayan, she has explained that he was also known as Bada Bablu and identified him in the Court. It is worthy to note here that upon asking by the Court, the appellant-Padam Singh acknowledged his name as such. Further, she was not cross- examined at all on this aspect. We also notice that Padam Singh himself appeared in the witness box as DW7 but, did not claim that he was not known as Bablu. In view thereof, this Court finds no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that in the FIR, name of Padam Singh @ Pappi was absent. Moreover, we also find from the prosecution testimony that all the 4 sons of Ram Singh were alleged to be involved in the offence. Indisputably, the appellants and co-accused are brothers and sons of Ram Singh and none of the prosecution witnesses was suggested during their cross-examination that Padam Singh @ Pappi was not one of the assailants. Further, we notice that her deposition as to manner in which the offence was committed by the appellants remained [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (11 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] unimpeached during her cross examination. Rather, the suggestions put to her by the defence fortified that there was an old enmity between the parties and the appellants had a motive to assault the complainant party. Her testimony does not appear to be suffering from any improvement or embellishment; rather, during her cross-examination, she has categorically admitted that she did not see the first two shots fired at her father-in-law and at her husband, as also stated so in her parcha bayan. Her testimony stood corroborated from the deposition of Pramila Rohilla (PW2) and Rajendra Prasad Rohilla (PW3), the other injured eye witnesses. It may be pertinent to note here that Rajendra Prasad Rohilla was present in the office along with his father Khem Chand and brother Giriraj Prasad when they all were shot at by the appellants along with co-accused. In his examination-in-chief, he has described the entire incident in graphic details and his testimony could not be shaken in the course of his cross examination. Smt. Vidhya Devi (PW6), the wife of deceased Khem Chand, has categorically stated that Pappi @ Padam Singh shot a gunfire upon her but, she ducked and the bullet hit the wall. She has also alleged that accused Praveen had hit Pramila with a gunshot and she saw the present appellants with other co-accused fleeing from the place of incident. Her testimony also remained unshaken during her cross-examination. Thus, from the testimony of aforesaid eye witnesses, it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had entered the house of the complaint party, caused murder of Khem Chand and Giriraj Prasad with gun shots and also attempted to [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (12 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] murder other person. It is trite law that testimony of the injured eye witnesses is most creditworthy if found to be free from suspicion which is the situation obtaining in the instant case. Although, the prosecution has also examined S/Shri Jamna Prasad (PW14), Badleram Meena (PW15) and Chandrabhan Sharma (PW16) as the eye witnesses but, their cross-examination does not inspire confidence that they have seen the incident but, from their deposition, it was established that they have seen the appellants coming out of the place of incident armed with katta and fleeing on the motorcycles. In view of aforesaid evidence, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to establish from the ocular evidence, which stood corroborated from the medical evidence, that the appellants have committed murder of Khem Chand and Giriraj Prasad with multiple gun shots and attempted to murder Smt. Anju, Smt. Pramila and Shri Rajendra Prasad and the learned trial court committed no error in recording the findings of their conviction, as supra. This Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants. We find no delay in registration of FIR. The incident occurred in the morning of 29.07.2010 wherein, two family members died at the spot on account of gunshot injuries and as many as 3 persons were injured including grievous injuries to two persons which were found to be dangerous to life. From the evidence available on record, it was established that the injured person were first taken to the Community Health Centre at [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (13 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] Kaman, thereafter to RBM Hospital at Bharatpur and from there to the Heritage Hospital at Agra on the same day. Anju Rohilla (PW1), Pramila Rohilla (PW2) and Rajendra Prasad (PW3) have stated so in unison in their deposition. Further, Shri Totaram Saini (PW4)-the Office Clerk in the office of the complainant-party, has candidly stated that he has reached the scene of incident immediately thereafter and though, did not witness the occurrence but, had immediately taken Shri Rajendra Prasad to the Hospital at Kaman on a motorcycle. Dr. Pramod Bansal (PW11), a Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Kaman has also deposed that at about 8.30 am on 29.07.2010, some persons had brought Pramila and Rajendra Rohilla to the Hospital and after administering first aid, they were referred to the Hospital at Bharatpur on account of their serious condition. He has further stated that sometime thereafter, the police had brought the dead bodies of Khem Chand and Giriraj Rohilla and Anju Rohilla was also brought to the hospital in injured condition and she was also referred to the Bharatpur Hospital on account of her serious condition. Dr. Ashok Mathur (PW12) has stated that he has examined, in between 10.00 am to 11.00 am, all the three injured in RBM Hospital, Bharatpur. Dr. Devendra Gupta (PW19) has deposed that Anju Rohilla, Pramila Rohilla and Rajendra Rohilla were brought to the Heritage Hospital, Agra and he has examined them from 12.45 pm onwards. Shri Mahesh Kumar (PW21), the then SHO Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur has deposed that he received a telephonic message at about 7.30 am on 29.07.2010 that there was firing at the residence of Rajendra Rohilla, Advocate whereupon, he reached the place of incident and [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (14 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] found two persons dead in the office and the remaining family members had already left for the hospital for treatment. Shri Ram Niwas Meena (PW10)-the Chowki In-charge, RBM Hospital Chowki, Bharatpur has stated that upon receiving telephonic instruction from the S.P. at about 11.00 am, he had left for the Heritage Hospital, Agra where he reached at about 7.30 pm and recorded the parcha bayan of Anju at about 8.00 pm. True it is that both the deceased were Lawyers and the injured Rajendra Prasad was also a Lawyer but, in view of the gravity of unfortunate incident which had struck the family, it was but natural for the family members to have taken care of injured first. In the backdrop of aforesaid factual scenario, we find no delay much less inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Similarly, we find no substance in the contention of Shri Rajesh Sharma that delay in recording the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of eye witnesses namely; Jamna Prasad (PW14), Badleram Meena (PW15) and Chandrabhan Sharma (PW16), has eroded their credibility. As already observed, a Single Bench of this Court, has vide its order dated 28.03.2011 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2472/2010, transferred the investigation from the State Agency to the CBI pursuant whereupon, the CBI has taken over the investigation and registered the FIR No.RCJAIS0014 on 06.04.2011, started investigation after receiving the original file in FIR No.443/2010 from the Police Station Kaman and recorded the statement of these witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.04.2011, i.e., without any delay. [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (15 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] In so far as contention of learned counsel for the appellants that recovery of only 7 bullets from the place of incident despite allegation of opening of more gunfire than 7, raises a doubt as to veracity of the prosecution case is concerned, we find no merit in it. Besides the 7 bullets recovered from the place of incident, 3 bullets were retrieved from the body of the deceased Giriraj Prasad and one bullet from the body of the deceased Khem Chand. From the testimony of Dr. Raj Kumar Choudhary (PW33)- the Radiologist, it was also reflected that one bullet remained embedded in the lower abdominal part of the injured Rajendra Prasad. Thus, the prosecution was able to establish firing of as many as 12 bullets. Likewise, submission of learned counsel for the appellants as to absence of recovery from them creating a doubt as to reliability of the prosecution case, is devoid of force. Indisputably, the incident is dated 29.07.2010 and the appellants came to be arrested as late as on 22.04.2012, i.e., after the lapse of about 1 year and 9 months. After such long lapse of time, absence of recovery of the weapon of offence from their deposition created no doubt as to veracity of the prosecution case. Even otherwise, the allegation against them was of firing the shots from kattas and from the firearm examination report dated 22.02.2012 (Ex.P93) furnished by Central Forensic Science Laboratory, upon examination of the bullets recovered from the place of incident and from the body of the deceased and the injured, it was found that they have been fired from .315” country made firearm and more than one country made firearms were used in firing these [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (16 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] bullets. Moreover, as already discussed, since, the complicity of the appellants in the subject offences was well established from the prosecution evidence especially, the ocular testimony of the injured eye witnesses which stood medically corroborated, mere absence of recovery of weapon of offence or for that matter, any incriminating evidence from them, is rendered of no consequence. In the conspectus of aforesaid analysis, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the accused-appellants are guilty of charges framed against them and the judgement impugned warrants no interference. Though, not argued by any of the learned counsels but, we have observed a disturbing feature in the judgement impugned dated 25.07.2018 whereby, the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 or 302/34 or 302/120B IPC, as also under Section 307 or 307/34 or 307/120B IPC. Although, it is permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure to frame alternative charges as was done in the instant case; but not the conviction. The charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 302 or 302/149 or 302/120B, 307 or 307/149 or 307/120B IPC. It may be worthy to note here that although the charges were framed under Section 302/149 IPC as also under Section 307/149 IPC; but, on account of acquittal of two of the accused person reducing total number of the accused person in the instant case to 4, instead of Section 149 IPC, the conviction was recorded with the aid of Section 34 IPC which is permissible. However, it was not permissible to record conviction [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (17 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] in alternative. The appellants could have been convicted either under Section 302 simplicitor or under Section 302/34 IPC and similarly, either under Section 307 or 307/34 IPC and not under both the provisions. It is trite law that an accused cannot act both; the sole perpetrator as also a joint perpetrator. However, it is a well-settled legal principle that the accused can be convicted under Section 302/34 IPC as also under Section 302/120B simultaneously inasmuch, while, as the Section 120B pertains to the planning phase covering criminal conspiracy, the Section 34 deals with the execution phase. In the instant case, it is established from the evidence on record that the appellants have trespassed in the house of the complainant party armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance of their common intention to cause murder, assaulted the deceased as also the injured person with gunshots. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, it can safely be gathered that they had hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the aforesaid offences and in furtherance of their common intention, they committed the same. Furthermore, from the medical evidence available on record, it was established that death of Khemchand and Giriraj Prasad was not on account of any single fatal blow rather, was on account of cumulative effect of the multiple gunshots received by them. In view thereof, we are of the considered view that the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 302 IPC simplicitor. Section 386(e) of Cr.P.C confers upon the appellate court a power to make any amendment or any consequential or incidental [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (18 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] order that may be just and proper subject to two provisos contained thereunder. Since, as already observed, charges against the appellants were framed in alternative under Sections 302 or 302/149 or 302/120B, 307 or 307/149 or 307/120B, exercising our power under Section 386(e) Cr.P.C, we deem it just and proper to alter the conviction of the appellants from Sections 302 or 302/34 or 302/120B and Sections 307 or 307/34 or 307/120B to Sections 302/34 and 302/120B as also under Sections 307/34 and 307/120B. Since, the charges to that effect were already framed and the sentences remain unaffected, no prejudice is caused to the appellants. The appeal no.397/2018 is dismissed accordingly with aforesaid modification. Needless to say that the observation made hereinabove by this Court are only for the purpose of disposal of the appeal preferred by the appellants against their conviction and shall not prejudice the pending trial against the co-accused. APPEAL NO.450/2018 The appeal no.450/2018 has been preferred by the injured- complainant Anju Rohilla under Section 378(3) read with Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 25.07.2012 whereby, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents namely; Meera Kumari and Vijaya Kumari of the charges framed against them for offences under Sections 148, 120B, 452, 302, 302/149, 302/120B, 452, 302 or 302/149 or 302/120B, 307 or 307/149 or 307/120B, 323 and 323/149 IPC. [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (19 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] The relevant facts have already been narrated in the judgement passed by D.B. Criminal Appeal No.397/2018 decided vide this common order and therefore, need no reiteration. Assailing the judgement, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the allegations against them figured in the parcha bayan (Ex.P1) itself lodged by the injured eye witnesses. Further, inviting attention of this Court towards the deposition of injured eye witnesses namely; Anju Rohilla (PW1), Pramila Rohilla (PW2) and Rajendra Prasad Rohilla (PW3), he canvassed that they have categorically stated that the respondents, along with co-accused, entered their house armed with lathi as members of an unlawful assembly and inflicted several blows in furtherance of their common object to commit murder/attempt to murder. Learned senior counsel contended that from the statement of the eye witnesses namely; Vidhya Devi (PW6), Jamna Prasad (PW14) and Badleram Meena (PW15), it was established that they have seen the respondents coming out of the house of the deceased with lathis; however, the learned trial court, has, vide its judgement impugned, acquitted them on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Learned senior counsel contended that even assuming that the allegations against them of inflicting lathi blows were not medically corroborated, being members of unlawful assembly, even in absence of any overt act, since the offence of double murder and infliction of life threatening injuries to various person in furtherance of their common object was proved, they were liable to be convicted of the charges framed against them. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (20 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] allowed, the judgement impugned dated 25.07.2018 be quashed and set aside to the extent of acquittal of the respondents no.1 and 2 and they be convicted of the charges framed against them and be sentenced accordingly. Learned Special Public Prosecutor supported the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2, opposing the submissions, contended that the learned trial court has, after careful examination of the evidence available on record, recorded the findings of their acquittal which warrant no interference by this Court under its very limited jurisdiction. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Heard. Considered. True it is that in the parcha bayan made by the injured eye witness Anju Rohilla (PW1), there were allegations against the respondents of coming to her house, along with co-accused, armed with lathis and to have inflicted multiple blows to the complainant party but, the learned trial court has, after meticulous analysis of the evidence on record, reached to a conclusion of their non-involvement in the offence. It was held by the learned trial court that Anju Rohilla (PW1) has though, alleged infliction of lathi blows by the respondents on the body of her mother-in-law Vidhya Devi but, she was not subjected to any medical examination. Smt. Vidhya Devi has also, as PW6, levelled bald and vague allegations against the respondents of hitting her with the lathis but, did not specify which part of the body was hit by them. [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (21 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] Further, the PW1 has alleged that both the respondents have hit her on head with lathi but, her injury reports, i.e., Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, reflect only two injuries; one on her hand and another on head. While, the head injury was attributed by her to co-accused- Praveen with gun and another injury on hand was alleged to be on account of gunshot fired by Praveen. She has also alleged that they inflicted lathi blow on the person of her father-in-law, but the same was not medically corroborated. The learned trial court has also observed that the similar allegations were levelled by Pramila Rohilla (PW2) as also by Rajendra Rohilla (PW3) but, the same were also not medically corroborated. Jamna Prasad (PW14) though, claimed not to have seen the incident but, has stated that he saw the respondents coming out of the house of the deceased with lathi. However, during his cross-examination, he has stated that the part A to B of his police statement (Ex.D2), to the effect that he did not see the respondents-the daughters of Ram Singh, was written by the CBI on its own and he did not make it. Similar averment was made by Badleram Meena (PW15) in his examination-in-chief but, he has also denied that the A to B part of his police statement (Ex.D3) to the effect that he did not see the two respondents coming out of the house of the deceased, was made by him. Thus, there was material improvement in their testimony which rendered the same untrustworthy. Furthermore, although, Chandrabhan (PW16) has claimed to have seen the two respondents coming out of the house of deceased with lathi in their hand and to have gone to the house of [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (22 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] Ram Singh; but, in his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that he has weak eye sight (both, near and distant). In view of aforesaid evidence, it does not inspire confidence of this Court that the respondents no.1 and 2 were involved in the alleged offence. In our considered view, the learned trial court did not err in recording the finding of acquittal of the respondents no.1 and 2. Their Lordships have in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka reported in [(2024) 8 SCC 149], held as under: “38. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.PC as follows: “8. xxx xxx xxx 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (23 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” Since, we are not convinced that the findings of the learned trial court, qua acquittal of the respondents no.1 and 2, suffer from any perversity or, patent illegality or, are based on misreading of material evidence on record, in the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Resultantly, the appeal no.450/2018 is dismissed. APPEAL NO.330/2023 The appeal no.330/2023 was preferred by the injured victim Vidhya Devi under Section 372 read with Section 357 Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 25.07.2018 seeking capital punishment for the accused-respondents Dal Chand @ Bablu and Padam Singh @ Pappi. However, during its pendency, the [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (24 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] appellant expired and her legal representatives were brought on record. The relevant facts have already been narrated in the judgement passed in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.397/2018 decided vide this common order and therefore, need not be reiterated. Praying for enhancement of sentence of life imprisonment to the capital punishment, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that it was a double murder case wherein, a Lawyer of Kaman, Shri Giriraj Prasad Rohilla and his father were murdered and deadly assault was made on the other family members seriously injuring all of them including Advocate Shri Rajendra Prasad Rohilla. Learned senior counsel submitted that the offence was committed in broad day light with premeditation. He submitted that the brutal manner in which the offence was committed sent a wave of shock in the society and looking to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offence, a learned Single Judge of this Court has transferred the investigation from State Agency to CBI. Shri Surana further contended that the appellants remained absconded for a period of almost more than one year and nine months and remaining two accused have recently been apprehended after more than 15 years from the date of incident. He argued that looking to the grave danger to the life of the Rajendra Prasad Rohilla, he has been extended police protection by this Court. Praying for enhanced sentence, he drew attention of this Court towards judgements of their previous conviction. Vide judgement dated 15.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur Headquarter, Deeg in [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (25 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] Sessions Case No.5/2008, the appellants were convicted under Sections 323, 452 and 324/149 IPC. He submitted that vide another judgement dated 10.02.1999, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagar, District Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.144/1996, convicted the appellant-Padam Singh along with other accused of the offences under Sections 147, 323, 452, 427 and 504 IPC and were given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He, however, admitted that a criminal appeal no.6729/2008 is pending consideration before this Court against the judgement dated 15.05.2008. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, he prayed that the sentenced awarded to the appellants be enhanced to death penalty. Learned Special Public Prosecutor prayed for passing the appropriate order. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents, inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section 372 Cr.P.C., contended that appeal on behest of the victim for enhancement of sentence is not maintainable. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parvinder Kansal vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.-(2020) 19 SCC 496. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the appellants, referring to and relying upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 21.04.2025 passed in the case of Sachin vs. [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (26 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] State of Maharashtra-2025 INSC 716, would submit that even if the appeal is not found to be maintainable, this Court, in suo- motu exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., can enhance the sentence. Heard. Considered. Section 372 Cr.P.C. provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgeement or order of a criminal court except provided for by this Code or by any other law in the time being in force. However, its proviso provides that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused, or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. Thus, while proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. gives a victim right to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal or conviction for a lesser offence or against imposition of inadequate compensation but, to no appeal for enhancement of the sentence, a right which has exclusively been conferred upon the State Government under Section 377 Cr.P.C. For ready reference under Section 377 (3) Cr.P.C. is quoted hereunder: “377. Appeal by the State Government against sentence: (1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2), the State Government may in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court, direct the Public prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy— [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (27 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] (a) to the Court of session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate; and (b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court”; (c) in Sub-Section (3), for the words “the High Court”, the words “the Court of Session or, as the case may be, the High Court” shall be substituted. (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence.” Thus, from the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is apparent that only State has been conferred a right to seek enhancement of sentence which has been denied to the victim. Their Lordships in the case of Parvinder Kansal (supra) held as under: “A reading of the proviso makes it clear that so far as victim’s right of appeal is concerned, same is restricted to three eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused; conviction of the accused for lesser offence; or for imposing inadequate compensation. While the victim is given opportunity to prefer appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but at the same time there is no provision for appeal by the victim for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate, whereas Section 377, Cr.PC gives the power to the State Government to prefer appeal for enhancement of sentence. While it is open for the State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 377, Cr.PC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by victim under Section 372, Cr.PC on the ground of inadequate sentence. It is fairly well settled that the remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. Unless same is [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (28 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] provided either under Code of Criminal Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force no appeal, seeking enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim, is maintainable. Further we are of the view that the High Court while referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 599 has rightly relied on the same and dismissed the appeal, as not maintainable.” In the backdrop of aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, we are of the considered view that the appeal preferred by the victim seeking enhancement of sentence is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, in the case of Sachin (supra), relying upon the judgement in the case of Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar vs. State of Maharashtra: (1977) 3 SCC 25, held that the High Court can suo-motu, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, enhance the sentence in appropriate cases and what is an appropriate case, has to be left to the discretion of the High Court. Thus, still, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the victim seeking enhancement of the sentence, this Court can, suo-motu exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., consider the issue of enhancement of sentence. However, such power should be exercised very strenuously and only in rarest of the rare cases where the quantum of punishment awarded is so inadequate that it shakes the conscience of the Court. [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (29 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court has, in the case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, held as under: “209. There are numerous other circumstances justifying the passing of the lighter sentence; as there are countervailing circumstances of aggravation. "We cannot obviously feed into a judicial computer all such situations since they are astrological imponderables in an imperfect and undulating society." Nonetheless, it cannot be overemphasised that the scope and concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must receive a liberal and expansive construction by the courts in accord with the sentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3). Judges should never be blood-thirsty. Hedging of murderers has never been too good for them. Facts and figures, albeit incomplete, furnished by the Union of India, show that in the past, Courts have inflicted the extreme penalty with extreme infrequency-a fact which attests to the caution and compassion which they have always brought to bear on the exercise of their sentencing discretion in so grave a matter. It is, therefore, imperative to voice the concern that courts, aided by the broad illustrative guidelines indicated by us, will discharge the onerous function with evermore scrupulous care and humane concern, directed along the highroad of legislative policy outlined in Section 354(3), viz, that for persons convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.” [2026:RJ-JP:15262-DB] (30 of 30) [CRLAD-397/2018] We do not find the instant case to be a fit case for invoking the inherent revisional jurisdiction under following mitigating circumstances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, in a number of cases, commuted the sentence of death penalty to life imprisonment on account of inordinate delay in its execution whereas, in the instant case, the appellants have already been awarded life imprisonment. Further, it is a well settled legal principle that though, double murder is heinous but, number of victim is not the only criteria for awarding capital punishment. The incident is almost 16 years old and as on 14.04.2026, the appellants Padam Singh remained in custody for a period of 15 years, 7 months and 1 day and Dalchand for a period of 15 years, 8 months and 4 days including remission since 22.04.2012 and 13 years 11 months and 25 days by both without remission. Nothing has been brought to our knowledge which could reflect that their jail conduct is not satisfactory or that they do not have reformative tendencies. In the aforesaid factual context, we do not find it to be the rarest of rare case wherein, suo-motu exercising its revisional power, the sentence of life imprisonment should be enhanced to capital punishment. Accordingly, the appeal no.330/2023 is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J RS /53-55