[2026:RJ-JP:12663-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 41/2018 Mohan Singh @ Monu S/o Rameshwar aged 22 years R/o Karamgarh, Police Station Narwana, Distt. Jind Haryana At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur ----Accused/Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 25/03/2026 Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 25.03.2026 Date on which judgement is reserved : 25.03.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : Full Judgement Date of pronouncement : 28.03.2026 Per Hon’ble MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. The accused-appellant (for brevity, ‘appellant’) has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgement dated 27.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.53/2013 (59/2009) whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:12663-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLAD-41/2018] Section 302 IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-; in default whereof, four months’ additional rigorous imprisonment. Section 201 IPC:- Three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default whereof, two months’ additional rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences to run concurrently. The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Motilal (PW16)- the Station House Officer, Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur submitted a written report dated 05.09.2009 at the Police Station Dudu wherein, it was stated that on that very day, at about 6:05 am, a telephonic message was received in the police station to the effect that a dead body was lying on Jaipur-Ajmer Road (NH-8) by side of the railing near Nasnoda Bridge and upon reaching there, they found the dead body wearing only a bloodstained white pant. It was further stated that there were about 27 punctured wounds with sharp pointed weapon on the body. In the right pocket of the pant, a diary was found containing various mobile numbers. Based thereupon, an FIR No.372 dated 05.09.2009 came to be registered for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. After investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted under the aforesaid sections whereunder, charges were also framed. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove. Assailing the impugned judgement, learned counsel for the appellant made two-fold submissions. He contended that since, the dead body was lying by side of the National Highway, it was a case of road accident which was given colour of culpable homicide. His another submission was that the weapon of offence-an iron [2026:RJ-JP:12663-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLAD-41/2018] rod was allegedly recovered on his disclosure statement vide seizure memo dated 08.09.2009 (Ex. P17) but, while, one of the panch witnesses to it namely Shri Bheeva Ram was not examined, the testimony of another witness Shri Rameshwar Yadav (PW8) did not inspire confidence as to genuineness of the recovery. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, the judgement impugned dated 27.11.2017 be quashed and set aside and he 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, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Heard. Considered. Indisputably, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Court has held, on the basis of evidence on record, that the appellant was a cleaner on the truck belonging to Chetak Logistic Company, Manesar of which the deceased was driver and they both were taking the truck loaded with the goods, on the fateful day, from Manesar to Aurangabad. It was further held that on the way, the appellant committed murder of Suresh-the driver with an iron rod, threw the dead body by side of the road and was taking the truck for committing theft of the articles loaded therein but, was intercepted by the police on the information furnished by the family members of the deceased. Upon inspection, bloodstains were found in the cabin of the truck along with recovery of the weapon of offence and other incriminating material which established guilt of the appellant. [2026:RJ-JP:12663-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLAD-41/2018] We have minutely and forensically examined the evidence available on record. From the testimony of S/Shri Ishwar Singh (PW11)-Manager of the Jaipur Branch of the Chetak Logistic Compnay and Karamveer (PW15)-Manager of the Company at its Manesar Office, it was established that the deceased was employed as driver and the appellant as cleaner on the Truck No.HR38N0377 and on the fateful day, they were taking the loaded truck from Manesar to Aurangabad for delivery. The dead body of the driver was recovered by side of the Jaipur-Ajmer Highway near Nasnoda Bridge by the police which had reached there on the telephonic information furnished by Shri Rameshwar Lal (PW8) at about 6:00 am on 05.09.2009. Shri Rameshwar Lal has deposed that he has agricultural field near the place where the dead body was found and on the fateful day, he found it at about 6:00 am whereupon, he informed on Number 100. His testimony stands corroborated from the written report-Ex.P1 as also from the testimony of S/Shri Moti Lal (PW16)-the SHO, Police Station Dudu, Mangi Lal (PW1)-ASI and Ramjas-a Constable who had gone along with others to the place where the dead body was found. As per the postmortem report of the body of deceased (Ex.P24), which was proved by Dr. Rajendra Mittal (PW10), there were a large number of ante mortem injuries on his body including the vital parts such as chest and skull. As per opinion of the Medical Board, cause of death was injuries to lungs which caused Pneumothorax. In view thereof, it was established beyond doubt that it was a case of homicidal death. [2026:RJ-JP:12663-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLAD-41/2018] S/Shri Rohitash (PW2), Gurudev (PW3), Vedpal (PW4), Sewa Singh (PW5) and Jai Bhagwan (PW6), have stated in unison that upon receipt of an information from the Police Station Dudu in the morning of 05.09.2009 about murder of Suresh, when they were going in a four wheeler to the place where the dead body was taken, on the way, they intercepted the subject truck with appellant driving it. Upon asking, the appellant got nervous and he was handed over, along with the truck, to Police Station Uklana. Their testimony could not be impeached during the course of cross-examination. Further, on the disclosure statement made by the appellant, on 06.09.2009 vide seizure memo (Ex.P15), the subject truck was recovered from his possession which, on inspection, was found to contain bloodstains inside the cabin. Similarly, on the disclosure statement of the appellant, the weapon of offence-an iron rod with a sharp pointed end was also recovered on 08.09.2009 vide Ex.P17. Out of the two panch witnesses to it, while, one of the witnesses namely Shri Bheeva Ram was not examined, another witness Shri Rameshwar Lal was examined as PW8. He has categorically stated that the seizure memo was prepared by the Investigating Agency in his presence on which he signed at A to B. His statement during cross-examination that police also obtained his signature on 2-3 blank papers, does not mean that the subject seizure memo was prepared on the aforesaid blank papers inasmuch as, he was not put to any such suggestion that the same was prepared on such blank papers. Moreover, Ex.P17 has been proved by Shri Motilal (PW16)-the [2026:RJ-JP:12663-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLAD-41/2018] Investigating Officer. Their Lordships have, in the case of Mallikarjun and Others Vs. State of Karnataka: MANU/SC/1064/2019, while dealing with a case wherein, both the panch witnesses to the seizure memo to the weapon of offence have turned hostile, held as under:- “23. As pointed out earlier, based on the disclosure statement of Accused No. 1, MO-1-dagger which was kept hidden in the haystack of fodder in the loft of the cattle shed behind the house of Accused No. 1 had been seized under Ex.-P9- Panchnama in the presence of panch witnesses PW- 8-Chandrappa and PW-9-Mahadevappa Needgera. The said panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. MO-2-dagger and MO-3-handle of the axe were recovered from the scene of occurrence under Ex.-P7-spot panchnama. On behalf of the Accused, learned Senior Counsel contended that the evidence of PW- 17-PSI as to the recovery of MO-1-dagger at the behest of Accused No. 1 is doubtful and when PWs 8 and 9 have turned hostile, no weight could be attached to the alleged recovery of MO-1-dagger. There is no merit in the contention that merely because the panch witnesses turned hostile, the recovery of the weapon would stand vitiated. It is fairly well settled that the evidence of the Investigating Officer can be relied upon to prove the recovery even when the panch witnesses turned hostile. In Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat and Ors. MANU/SC/0871/2010: (2011) 11 SCC 111, it was held as under: 33. In Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [2026:RJ-JP:12663-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLAD-41/2018] MANU/SC/0126/1978: (1978) 4 SCC 435 it was observed (at SCC p. 438, para 9) that where the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution version. Similar view was expressed in Mohd. Aslam v. State of Maharashtra:MANU/SC/2255/2000: (2001) 9 SCC 362. 34. In Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0096/2004: (2004) 10 SCC 657, it was further held that: 10. ... even if panch witnesses turn hostile, which happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of the person who effected the recovery would not stand vitiated. 35. This Court has held in a large number of cases that merely because the panch witnesses have turned hostile is no ground to reject the evidence if the same is based on the testimony of the investigating officer alone. In the instant case, it is not the case of defence that the testimony of the investigating officer suffers from any infirmity or doubt. (Vide Modan Singh case, Krishna Gopal case and Anter Singh case.) PW-17-PSI has clearly spoken about the recovery of MO-1-dagger at the behest of Accused No. 1 and MO-2-dagger and MO-3- [2026:RJ-JP:12663-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLAD-41/2018] handle of the axe from the scene of occurrence and his evidence cannot be discarded merely because panch witnesses have turned hostile. In the backdrop of aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, we are not inclined to accept the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that on account of non-production of one of the panch witnesses to the seizure memo and in view of cross- examination of the another panch witness namely Rameshwar Lal, the seizure memo is of no evidentiary value. Furthermore, as per the arrest memo of the appellant (Ex.P8), there were fresh injury marks on the body of the accused which stood corroborated from his injury report-Ex.P29. As per the prosecution case, he had received these injuries on the resistance offered by the deceased while committing his murder and this incriminating evidence was put to him while recording his plea under Section 313 CrPC but, he did not offer any explanation. We have also noticed that as per the Forensic Science Laboratory Report (Ex.P37), human blood was detected on the wrist watch, levada, pant, toliya, and hairs of deceased; gauze, pair of chappal and dari collected from the truck; nails of accused collected for blood grouping; sariya, pana and mobile phone and shirt of accused recovered upon his disclosure statement. In the celebrated judgement of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra: (1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases 116, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid following golden principels to [2026:RJ-JP:12663-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLAD-41/2018] be kept in mind while considering a case of 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 conclusion 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 grammatical 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 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 accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. [2026:RJ-JP:12663-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLAD-41/2018] 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” As is apparent from the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has been able to establish the complete chain of circumstances leading to the irresistible conclusion only of guilt of the appellant wiping out every hypothesis of his innocence and in view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that the judgement impugned passed by the learned trial Court recording conviction of the appellant warrants no interference. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/27