Dismissed

State v. Kailash and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Oct 2025CRLA/519/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against acquittal, the Rajasthan High Court examined variations in prosecution witness testimony regarding weapons, injuries, and the incident location. Upholding the trial court's finding of reasonable doubt and citing Supreme Court principles on appeal against acquittal, the bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal of the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was affirmed.

State Vs Kailash and Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:40961-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 519/1996

¶4

State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kailash S/o Ram Lal 2. Ami Lal S/o Ram Lal 3. Ram Lal S/o Kanhi Ram,

¶8

All Residents of Rasulpur, Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, P.P. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mukesh Kumar

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR JUDGMENT

¶12

08/10/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:-

¶13

The State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the judgment dated 28.09.1994 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khetari, District Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.77/1987 whereby Kailash, Ami Lal and Ram Lal were acquitted.

¶14

During pendency of the appeal, Ram Lal S/o Kanhi Ram died and the appeal qua him was abated. The appeal now survives qua Kailash and Ami Lal S/o Ram Lal (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’).

¶15

The facts as per the prosecution are that on a complaint given on 08.08.1987 by Kailash S/o Leeladhar Khati (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), FIR No.53/1987 under Sections 302, 326 read with Section 34 IPC and 448 IPC was registered at Police

¶16

[2025:RJ-JP:40961-DB]

¶17

[CRLA-519/1996]

¶18

(2 of 9)

¶19

Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu. It was stated that on 08.08.1987 Ram Lal armed with lathi , Kailash S/o Ram Lal and Ami Lal sons of Ram Lal armed with barchi (sharp edged weapon) came outside the baithak (sitting place outside the house) and started beating the complainant, Babu Lal (for brevity ‘deceased’) and Ram Chandra. Kailash gave a barchi blow on the head of the complainant, thereafter, all three accused gave beating to Ram Chandra and deceased. On hue and cry of the ladies, PW-6 Chandra Bhan and PW-7 Raghu Veer came and intervened. The deceased died on reaching the hospital. The accused earlier in morning had beaten PW-10 Vinod (son of uncle of the complainant) at the shop of Leeladhar Khati.

¶20

3.1. After filing of the challan, charges were framed u/s 302 IPC, in the alternate u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 323, 324 & 325 IPC, in the alternate 323 & 324 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶21

3.2. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the charges and stated that the complainant party was the aggressor, had come to the house of PW-8 Ramchandra, inflicted injuries and the accused only defended themselves. The prosecution examined twenty four witnesses and exhibited twenty eight documents. In defence, four witnesses were examined and seventeen documents were exhibited. The trial court after considering the factual aspect and appreciating the evidence concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case to the hilt and giving benefit of doubt acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor argues that the eye witnesses PW-1 Kailash (complainant), PW-4 Santlal, PW-6 Chandra Bhan, PW-7 Raghu Veer and PW-19 Dadkali supported the case of the

¶23

[2025:RJ-JP:40961-DB]

¶24

[CRLA-519/1996]

¶25

(3 of 9)

¶26

prosecution and in deposition narrated the incident in extenso . The contention is that the barchi, jaili (agriculture equipment), lathi and chain were recovered at the instance of accused and recovery was made in the presence of two witnesses. The postmortem report and injury report is relied upon to fortify the argument that the deceased succumbed to the injuries inflicted by the accused.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned judgment, contends that the scope of interference in the appeal against acquittal is limited. The argument is that there are variations in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with regard to the place of incidence, the weapons accused were armed with and in attributing the injuries.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 7. PW-8 Ramchandra (brother of the deceased) eye witness to the incident stated that Ram Lal inflicted injuries to the deceased with lathi and did not name the respondents. The witness was declared hostile.

¶29

PW-4 Santlal, PW-6 Chandra Bhan, PW-7 Raghu Veer, PW-16 Maman and PW-19 Dadkali were examined as eye witnesses. PW4 Santlal deposed that the incident occurred outside the baithak of PW-8 Ramchandra. In chief, it was stated that all three accused inflicted injuries to the deceased, later stated that Ram Lal had not inflicted injuries. The presence of PW-6 Chandra Bhan and PW-7 Raghu Veer at the time of incident was supported by statement of PW-4 Santlal. PW-6 Chandra Bhan testified that the deceased was attacked by all the three accused. It was stated that Kailash was

¶30

[2025:RJ-JP:40961-DB]

¶31

[CRLA-519/1996]

¶32

(4 of 9)

¶33

armed with jaili and Ami Lal gave a barchi blow on the head of the deceased. Where as, PW-6 Chandra Bhan deposed that PW-8 Ramchandra & Ami Lal gave barchi blow on head of the deceased and Kailash was armed with jaili . To similar effect were the statements of PW-7 Raghu Veer and PW-19 Dadkali but complaint state Kaliash and Ami Lal were armed with barchi .

¶34

PW-19 Dadkali was neither named in the complaint nor in the FIR but was projected as an eye witness by the prosecution. In cross-examination, it was stated that at the time of incident, she was sitting in the baithak along-with deceased and by the time she came out the accused had gone after inflicting injuries. In the same breath she stated that deceased was sitting at the door of the baithak where injuries were inflicted and she saw the incident. The deposition of PW-19 Dadkali dented the presence of PW-6 Chandra Bhan and PW-7 Raghu Veer on spot at the time of incident. 10. The Trial Court rightly considered that there were major variations in the deposition of the eye witnesses with regard to the role attributed, the weapons accused were armed with and the witnesses inter se disputed the presence of other witnesses at the time of incident. It was taken into account that PW-6 Chandrabhan, PW-7 Raghuveer and PW-19 Dadkali were relatives of the deceased. Moreover, PW-8 Ramchandra, PW-13 Randhir and PW-14 Madan were declared hostile and PW-16 Maman, PW19 Dadkali were not named as eye witnesses in the complaint. 11. The place of incident is in doubt. As per the complaint, the accused attacked outside the baithak of the deceased, whereas PW-16 Maman deposed that the incident took place inside the house of Ram Lal, where the complainant party had forcibly

¶35

[2025:RJ-JP:40961-DB]

¶36

[CRLA-519/1996]

¶37

(5 of 9)

¶38

entered. To similar effect the defence was taken in Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement.

¶39

It would be apposite to note at this stage that for the same incident, cross case at instance of Kailash Chand was registered in FIR No.54/1987 for the offences u/s 147, 148, 149, 323 & 324 IPC. It was alleged that Babu Lal, Ramchandra, and Kailash S/o Leeladhar Khati forcefully entered the house armed with jaili, farsi and lathi respectively. PW-22 Man Prakash (Investigating Officer) testified that in FIR No.54/1987 PW-8 Ramchandra was arrested on 21.12.1987 and at his instance, a kulhadi used in the incident was recovered in the presence of two recovery witnesses. Further stated that during investigation it was found that the incident for which FIR Nos.53/1987 & 54/1987 were registered, occurred at the same place. The perusal of the site plan and the testimony of PW-22 Man Prakash (I.O.) reveals that the incident took place on a common passage.

¶40

In the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.24), cause of death is multiple injuries to Lungs, Liver and Right Kidney leading to sudden of excessive hemorrhage leading to syncope, circulatory failure and respiratory failure. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature. It cannot be lost site of that three sharp edged weapon injuries on the head of the deceased were declared to be simple in nature and do not find mention in cause of death of the deceased. 14. The recovery of barchi at the instance of Ami Lal and recovery of jaili from the house of Ram Lal do not enhance the case of the prosecution. There were no blood stains or other evidence connecting the use of recovered weapons in the incident.

¶41

[2025:RJ-JP:40961-DB]

¶42

[CRLA-519/1996]

¶43

(6 of 9)

¶44

The prosecution failed to prove injuries attributed by the accused and the weapon used.

¶45

On the other hand, in defense the accused were successful in creating doubt with regard to the place of incident and that the aggressor were the complainant. The statement of I.O. and PW-16 Maman when read along-with the evidence produced in defence showed that the incident took place at the house of the Ramchandra where the complainant party forcibly entered and inflicted injuries. The injuries sustained by all the three accused were proved by the MLR & deposition of DW-2 Dr. Bhagwan Singh Somra.

¶46

Viz-a-viz the prior incident that occurred at the shop of Leeladhar Khati, where PW-10 Vinod was beaten by the accused with chain remains unsubstantiated. Except the injured, all other eye witnesses PW-13 Randhir, PW-14 Madan and PW-17 Hariram were declared hostile. PW-15 Sanwal deposed that PW-10 Vinod was beaten by the accused with chain but he had not seen the injuries on body of Vinod. In cross-examination, PW-15 Sanwal stated that he was not aware that the shop where the incident took place was open or close and he was not aware that anyone else was present at the time of incident. It was admitted that he was related to the brother of the deceased. During the deposition, the witnesses showed ignorance as to whether the chain used in the incident was of cycle or motorcycle whereas, in the statement before the police it was stated that the cycle chain was used. The deposition was not found reliable.

¶47

In back drop of previous dispute between parties and cross cases filed for incident that occurred on 8/8/07, the sole testimony

¶48

[2025:RJ-JP:40961-DB]

¶49

[CRLA-519/1996]

¶50

(7 of 9)

¶51

of PW-10 Vinod was rightly not relied upon by the trial Court to form sole basis for convicting the accused u/s 323, 324 and 325 IPC.

¶52

There are major variations inter se the deposition of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the weapons accused were armed with; injuries attributed to each of the accused; and the place of incident. Further the statement of prosecution witnesses detailing the injuries are not inconsonance with the medical evidence. There were cross versions of the incident and the injuries sustained by the accused, side remained unexplained. The trial Court rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries and the fatal injury to the deceased were inflicted by the accused with the use of the recovered weapons.

¶53

The scope of interference in the appeal against the judgment of the acquittal is enunciated by the Supreme Court in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka reported in [(2024) 8 SCC 149] and held:-

¶54

“40. 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 378CrPC as follows:

¶55

“8. …

¶56

8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

¶57

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

¶58

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is

¶59

(8 of 9)

¶60

[2025:RJ-JP:40961-DB]

¶61

[CRLA-519/1996]

¶62

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;

¶63

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

¶64

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 evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.”

¶65

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:

¶66

41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

¶67

41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and

¶68

41.3. 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.”

¶69

The view taken by the trial Court is plausible view and suffers from no factual or legal error much less perversity calling for interference in the appeal. No case is made out for interference.

¶70

(9 of 9)

¶71

[2025:RJ-JP:40961-DB]

¶72

[CRLA-519/1996]

¶73

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment dated 28.09.1994 passed by the trial court is affirmed.

¶74

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Keshav/3

¶75

Whether Reportable: Yes

State v. Kailash and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Kailash and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra @ Bhura Son of Ved Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Liyakat Ali Son of Abdul Rahman, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Kumar S/O Shri Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Smt.Durgesh Kaur

Smt. Vidhya Sharma W/O Shri Jawahar Lal Sharma, Vs Pawan Kumar Goyal

Mohd Aejaz Akbar S/O Abdul Majeed Vs the Uinon of India