CRLA/1167/2015 of BAJRANG LAL AND ANR Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PP on 27 July 2026

Judgment

27/07/2026 PER HON’BLE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. Vide judgement impugned dated 09.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.(13/2013) (16/2013) 46/2015 (CIS No.228/2014), the accused-appellants (for brevity, ‘appellants’), have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused-appellant-Bajrang Lal:- Section 302 IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, one month’s additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2 of 8) [CRLA-1167/2015] Section 324/34 IPC:- Three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default whereof, fifteen days’

additional

rigorous imprisonment. Section 323/34 IPC:- One year’s rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default whereof, ten days’ additional rigorous imprisonment. Section 447 IPC:- Three months’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-; in default whereof, five days’ additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences to run concurrently. Accused-appellant-Sewa Devi:- Section 302/34 IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, one month’s additional rigorous imprisonment. Section 324/34 IPC:- Three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default whereof, fifteen days’

additional

rigorous imprisonment. Section 323/34 IPC:- One year’s rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default whereof, ten days’ additional rigorous imprisonment. Section 447 IPC:- Three months’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-; in default whereof, five days’ additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences to run concurrently. The relevant facts in brief are that based on the parcha bayan (Ex.P7) of Smt. Suwa Devi (PW-4)-wife of the deceased- Sanwar Mal, an FIR No.150 dated 06.09.2012 (Ex.P24) came to be registered at Police Station Khatu Shyam Ji, Sikar for the offences under Sections 302, 323, and 447/34 IPC. It was alleged

(3 of 8) [CRLA-1167/2015] therein that her brother-in-law and younger brother of deceased, namely, Bajrang Lal-the appellant no.1, was pressurizing her husband to transfer the land falling in her husband’s share in the name of his sons as they had no issue which was being denied by her husband resulting into long animosity. It was alleged that at about 4:30 pm on the fateful day of 05.09.2012, the appellant no.1 and Durgali were cutting a tree in their field and on an objection by her husband, the appellant no.1 inflicted an axe blow on the head of her husband resulting into his instant death. It was further alleged that her sister, namely, Sewa Devi-the appellant no.2 also inflicted a lathi blow on the leg of her husband and she was beaten by Durgali. After investigation, while, the appellant no.1 was charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 324/34, 323/34 and 447 IPC, the appellant no.2 was charge-sheeted under Sections 302/34, 324/34, 323/34 and 447 IPC. Charges against them were framed under the aforesaid sections. After trial, they have been convicted and sentenced, as supra. Assailing the impugned judgement, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that their conviction has been recorded on the basis of conjectures and surmises and there is no legally admissible evidence on record to connect them with the alleged offence. Inviting attention of this Court towards the testimony of Suwa Devi (PW-4), learned counsel contended that while, she is claimed to be sole eye witness but, it does not inspire confidence as to its veracity. He contended that although, the weapon of offence, i.e., a bloodstained axe was recovered at the instance of the appellant no.1 but, in absence of blood grouping, it was of no help to the prosecution. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be

(4 of 8) [CRLA-1167/2015] allowed, the judgement impugned dated 09.09.2015 be quashed and set aside and they may be acquitted of the charges framed against them. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the submissions, contended that the learned trial Court has recorded the finding of guilt of the appellants after appreciating the cogent evidence available on record which warrants no interference in the appeal by this Court. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Heard. Considered. As per the Postmortem Report (Ex.P2) of the body of the deceased, he has received a lacerated wound on right side of scalp involving parietal, temporal and occipital region which was found to be brain deep with brain matter protruding. Corresponding fracture of right side parietal, temporal and occipital bone was found and as per medical opinion, cause of death was laceration of brain matter and excessive hemorrhage. The Postmortem Report was proved by Dr. Subhash Chandra (PW1). In view of the above, it is found to be an established case of culpable homicide. Now, this Court is required to examine as to whether the prosecution has been able to connect the appellants with the injury on the body of the deceased which was found to be the cause of death. The genesis of the prosecution case is the parcha bayan of Smt. Suwa Devi recorded by Shri Ummed Singh (PW-16), the then Station House Officer of the jurisdictional police station wherein, it was alleged that on account of old animosity, her husband Sanwar Mal was murdered by the appellant no.1 by infliction of an axe

(5 of 8) [CRLA-1167/2015] blow on his head. As per the prosecution case especially, Shri Ummed Singh (PW-16)-the Investigating Officer, the incident was witnessed by two person, namely, the complainant-Smt. Suwa Devi and her mother-in-law-Smt. Rukma. However, in the parcha bayan, it is stated that Smt. Rukma had reached the scene of crime only after the deceased had fallen down on the ground upon infliction of the injury, meaning thereby, she has not seen the incident. Smt. Rukma has, as PW-8, turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story at all. She has categorically denied, during her cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, either to have seen the incident or, that Sanwar Mal expired on account of infliction of an axe blow on his head by the appellant no.1. In view thereof, the prosecution case hinges on the sole testimony of the complainant-Smt. Suwa Devi. She has, in her examination-in-chief as PW-4, deviating from her parcha bayan, stated that only Durgali was cutting the tree and when objected by her husband, Bajrang Lal came and inflicted an axe blow on his head. The allegation in the parcha bayan of inflicting injuries on her person against Durgali was replaced on her mother-in-law namely Rukma and conspicuously, no allegation was levelled against her sister Sewa as was made in the parcha bayan. Therefore, there is complete absence of allegation against the appellant no.2-Sewa Devi of committing any offence or having shared any common intention with her husband-the appellant no.1 of committing murder of the husband of the complainant. A perusal of the judgement impugned dated 09.09.2015 also does not reflect any reason recorded by the learned trial Court for holding the appellant no.2 guilty of acting pursuant to the

(6 of 8) [CRLA-1167/2015] common intention or even sharing a common intention with her husband so as to warrant her conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Further, the judgement impugned also reflects that it was held by the learned trial Court that parcha bayan was recorded by the Investigating Agency at about 2:00 am in the night when the complainant gained consciousness which stood corroborated from the testimony of Chhitarmal (PW-3). However, the parcha bayan is found to be recorded at about 11:25 pm as per endorsement on it by its scribe-the SHO. Moreover, in her examination-in-chief, the complainant has claimed to have gained consciousness at about 2:00 am in the night but, in her cross-examination as PW-4, she has claimed to lose her consciousness at the scene of crime itself and not to have regained the same for a period of five days. She has categorically stated that she was unconscious for the period of five days and she was unaware as to what proceeding was carried out by the Investigating Agency during this period. She has further stated that for the period of five days, she never made any statement to the police and she was unaware as to what was recorded in the parcha bayan (Ex.P7) as it was recorded by the Investigation Agency on its own. She has claimed that her thumb impression on the parcha bayan must have been obtained by the Investigating Agency during the period she was unconscious. She has further stated that first, she was hit by Durgali on her head resulting into loss of consciousness and she was unaware as to whether thereafter, Durgali hit her husband on the head or someone else. In view of the statement made by the complainant during her cross-examination, we have no hesitation in recording

(7 of 8) [CRLA-1167/2015] a finding that she did not see the appellant no.1 inflicting head injury with an axe to the deceased and the parcha bayan (Ex.P7) was not based on her statement, and did not reflect the true genesis of the case. The learned trial Court appears to have recorded the findings without appreciating the cross-examination of the complainant as PW-4 at all. Since, the prosecution has not come with any other eye witness, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not establish guilt of either of the appellants by ocular evidence. Although, while recording the finding of the conviction of the appellants, the learned trial Court has relied upon the recovery of a bloodstained axe at the instance of the appellant no.1 but, as per the Forensic Science Laboratory Report dated 14.06.2013 (Ex.P50), blood grouping on it remained inconclusive. In view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Raja Naykar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh: (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 481 in which Their Lordships have held that if blood grouping is inconclusive, mere presence of human blood on the subject article is of no assistance to the prosecution, in absence of blood grouping, finding of conviction based on recovery of the alleged weapon of offence, i.e., axe, is found to be unsustainable. In the conspectus of aforesaid analysis, we are not convinced that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the appellants of commission of the offence of murder of the deceased-Sanwar Mal or any other offence. Therefore,, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

(8 of 8) [CRLA-1167/2015] Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The judgement impugned dated 09.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.(13/2013) (16/2013) 46/2015 (CIS No.228/2014) is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Since, the appellant no.2 namely Sewa Devi is already on bail, her bail bond stands discharged. The appellant no.1 namely Bajrang Lal is in open air camp. Both the appellants are set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellants namely

1. Bajrang Lal S/o Bhopal Ram and 2. Sewa Devi W/o Bajrang Lal are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each and a surety in the like amount within four weeks before the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgement or on grant of leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J 51/PRAGATI