Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1540 (RAJ)

Sanjay Kumar S/o. Mahendra v. State of Rajasthan

2025-09-08

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, RAVI CHIRANIA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ravi Chirania, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by appellant Sanjay Kumar against the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No.83/2015, titled as “State of Rajasthan Vs. Sanjay Kumar” whereby the learned court below convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one year’s additional simple imprisonment. 2. In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that a written report (Exhibit-P/1) dated 20.4.2015 was lodged by one Sanjeet Jha (complainant) to the SHO, Police Station, Pindwara, District Sirohi stating therein that he is residing from last more than 23 years in Pindwara and his village-mate, namely, Madan Jha ( deceased herein ) also resides close to his house from last 15 years; who works in a factory, named, Choudhary Industry. 3. By the aforesaid written report, he further informed the SHO, that the accused-Sanjay Kumar in the past attempted to make illicit relationship with Smt. Ranju Jha, wife of deceased-Madan Jha and due to this, there was an altercation between them in past, which was reported by Madan Jha (deceased) and Smt. Ranju Jha to the police and on account of this, the accused Sanjay Kumar had enmity with the deceased. He further stated that on 19.4.2015 Ranju Jha told him (complainant) that around 7:00 pm accused-Sanjay Kumar came to her house in a Pick-up Van and threatened that today he will kill her husband-Madan Jha (deceased) after he leaves the factory. Around 9:50 pm, as per the complainant, he received an information that some Pick-Up vehicle had hit Madan Jha, who then was taken to hospital in an injured condition, where he died. 4. On the written report, FIR No.123/2015 was registered at P.S. Pindwara, District Sirohi against accused Sanjay Kumar Mali S/o. Mahendra Mali for offence under Section 302 IPC. Around 9:50 pm, as per the complainant, he received an information that some Pick-Up vehicle had hit Madan Jha, who then was taken to hospital in an injured condition, where he died. 4. On the written report, FIR No.123/2015 was registered at P.S. Pindwara, District Sirohi against accused Sanjay Kumar Mali S/o. Mahendra Mali for offence under Section 302 IPC. The written report (Exhibit-P/1) is reproduced as under :- ^^eq> çkFkÊ Jh lathr >k iq= v tkfr czkgE.k fuoklh l‚<k ftyk egksrjh usiky dk fuosnu gS fd eS fiNys 23 o"kZ ls fi.MokMk esa esjs ifjokj lfgr jgrk gw¡A esjs gh xkao dk Jh enu >k iq= jktsoj >k tkfr czkgE.k tks fiNys 15 o"kZ ls ?kkaphokMk fi.MokMk esa vius ifjokj lfgr jgrk gS rFkk pkSèkjh bUMªlVht fljksgh jksM esa ukSdjh djrk gSA enu >k ds iMkSl esa igys lat; iq= egsUæ th ekyh fuoklh tkuhiqj ftyk flrke<h+ fcgkj jgrk Fkk ml njE;ku lat; ekyh us enu >k dh iRuh Jhefr jatw >k ds lkFk voSèk lEcUèk cukus dk ç;kl fd;k ftldk Jh enu >k dks irk pyus ij enu >k rFkk lat; ds chp vkil esa >xMk gqvkA ftldh fjiksVZ iqoZ esa enu >k o jatw >k }kjk Fkkus ij nh xbZ Fkh mlds ckn ls lat; ekyh us enu >k ls jath'k j[kus 'kq: dj fn;k vkt ls djhc pkj fnu igys lat; ekyh us enu ds lkFk >xMk dj mls tku ls ekjus dh èkedh nh Fkh tks ckr enu }kjk eq>s crkus ij eSus rFkk gekjs rjQ ds yksxks us lat; dks le>k;k fnukad 19@04@15 dks enu dh ifRu jatw >k us eq>s crk;k dh vHkh 7%00 ih,e ij lat; viuh fidi xkMh ysdj esjs ?kj vk;k Fkk rFkk eq>s èkedh nh dh rsjs ifr dks ukSdjh ls NqVVs gh tku ls ekj nwaxkA Qhj FkksMh nsj ckn djhc 9%50 ih,e ij eq>s lqpuk feyh dh enu dks fjdks ds ikl jksM ij fdlh fidvi xkMh us Vddj ekj nh gSA enu dks ?kk;y voLFkk esa vLirky fi.MokMk ysdj vk;s rks eSa Hkh vLirky igqapkA rc enu dh ekSr gks pqdh FkhA eq>s lansg gksus ij eS lat; tks gkmflax cksMZ fi.MokMk esa jgrk gS rFkk fiUVw esokMk dh fidvi xkMh vkj ts 38 th, 1818 pykrk gS ds ?kj igqapk rks lat; vius ?kj ij feyk rFkk mldh fidvi xkMh Hkh Äj ds vkxs [kMh ehyh xkMh dks eSusa ns[kk rks xkMh ds vkxs cEij ij rktk [kjksap rFkk bUtu dh tkyh rkth VqVh gqbZ fefy lat; us vius iwoZ ds jath'k fudkyus gsrw enu dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls mlds fiNs ls vius okgu fidvi dh VDdj ekjdj enu dh gR;k dj nh gSA fjiksVZ drkZgqA gR;k dk eqdnek ntZ dj dkuquh dk;Zokgh djkosA** 5. The Police on the said report registered an FIR No.123/2015 and conducted investigation. Thereafter it filed charge-sheet against the sole accused i.e. the appellant Sanjay Kumar. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant and on being denied by him, the trial was conducted against him, in which, to support its case prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and in documentary evidence 31 documents were exhibited. The statement of accused-appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. In defence, three documents were exhibited. 6. The learned trial court after considering evidence of the prosecution, documents as produced, statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and the documents produced in defence, passed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.05.2016, by which the learned court below convicted the appellant Sanjay Kumar. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 03.5.2016 passed by the learned trial court, the accused-appellant through Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana, questioned the judgment on various grounds as mentioned in the memo of appeal. According to learned counsel, the learned trial court committed grave mistake in law as well as on facts while reaching to the conclusion that the accused- appellant committed the alleged offence. According to him, there is no direct or indirect evidence so as to conclude that the appellant committed the alleged offence. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh submitted that the case was instituted by the police on the written report (Exhibit-P/1) lodged by PW-1 Sanjeet Jha, who lodged the report on the basis of the information given to him by the wife of deceased (Madan Jha), namely, Smt. Ranju Jha. According to the counsel, there is no eye-witness of the case as neither the wife of deceased PW-7 Smt. Ranju Jha nor the complainant PW-1 Sanjeet Jha stated in the written report as well as both in their statements before the trial court that they saw the accused-appellant hitting the deceased with pick-up van or that it is the appellant only who caused injury to the deceased, on account of which, he died. 9. 9. According to learned Senior counsel, by referring to some past incident, a theory of revenge and enmity was designed and presented by the complainant on baseless support by PW-7 Ranju Jha because there was no direct or indirect evidence, therefore, apparently there was no strong foundation available with the prosecution to allege that the appellant had committed the offence alleged. To support his submissions, learned Senior Counsel referred to the statement of PW-1 Sanjeet Kumar (complainant). To support his submissions, learned Senior Counsel referred to the statement of PW-1 Sanjeet Kumar (complainant). The relevant lines of the statement of PW-1 Sanjeet Kumar is reproduced as under :- ^^eS enu >k dks tkurk gwa tks ?kkaphokMk fi.MokMk esa djhc iUæg lky ls jgrs gSA buds iMkSl esa lat; tks tkfuiqj ftyk lhrke<h+ fcgkj dk gS jgrk FkkA lat; us enu >k dh ifRu ds lkFk voSèk lcaèk cukus dk ç;kl fd;k Fkk ftldk irk enu >k dks py x;k Fkk blls nksuksa ds chp esa >xMk gqvk FkkA eq>s enu >k us crk;k fd mlus bl ?kVuk dks ysdj nks ckj Fkkus ij fjiksV nh FkhA fnukad 19-04-15 dks 'kke dks djhc lkr vkB cts enu >k dh ifRu jatw >k us nkSM+rh gqbZ esjs ?kj vkdj crk;k fd lat; ,d ihdvi xkMh ysdj 'kjkc u'ks esa esjs ?kj vk;k] vkSj èkedh nh dh eSa rsjs ifr dks ukSdjh ls NqVrs gh ukS cts ekj nwaxkA blds djhc vkèks ikSus ?kaVs ckn esjs ikl vLirky ls foØe iqjksfgr i=dkj dk Qksu vk;k fd enu~ >k dh yk'k vLirky esa iM+h gqbZ gS vki vkdj mls ns[kks fdlh us mlds VDdj ekj nh gSA geus irk fd;k rks irk pyk fd lqjsUæ esokMk dh xkMh ls ftls lat; pyk jgk Fkk ml xkMh uacj vkjts 38 th, 1818 ls enu >k ds VDdj ekjdj mldh e`R;q dkfjr dh gSA eS lansg gksus ij ml xkMh dks ns[kus gkmflax cksMZ fi.MokMk x;k Fkk tgka ij lat; jgrk gS mlds edku ij x;k rks ogka ij xkMh [kMh Fkh ftl ij rktk jxM ds fu'kku Fks o vkxs dh >kyh VqVh gqbZ FkhA ml le; lat; Äj ij gh FkkA çfrijh{kk }kjk vfèkoDrk vfHk;qDr eS lat;dqekj dks djhc vkB nl lky ls tkurk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd esjs lkeus lat; o enu >k dk dHkh >xMk ugh gqvka fjikZsV çn'kZ ih0 1 eSus vius gkFk ls fy[kdj Fkkus esa nh Fkh] tks eSuZs jkr 12 cts ckn nh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd eSus lat; dks enu>k ds VDdj ekjrs ugh ns[kk Fkka esjk ?kj enu>k ds ?kj ls djhc vkèkk fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij gSA ;g lgh gS fd jatw >k esjs ?kj vkbZ rc vaèksjk gks x;k FkkA jatw >k vkbZ rc gjh lkMh iguh gqbZ FkhA enu >k ds ,d yMdh ukS lky dh o ,d yMdk 6&7 lky dk gSA jatw esjs ?kj vkbZ rc mlds cPps mlds lkFk FksA xkMh dks eS jkr dks 11 cts ds djhc ,sDlhMsaV gksus ds ckn ns[kus x;k FkkA xkMh dk dyj lQsn FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd xkMh tgka [kMh Fkh ogka jks'kuh dh O;oLFkk ugh gksa xkMh ds jkbZV lkbZM dh >kyh VqVh gqbZ Fkh o chp esa xkMh ds cEij ij [kjksap vkbZ gqbZ Fkh rFkk ykbZV ds mij dh >kyh VqVh gqbZ FkhA xkMh dk cEij lQsn dyj dk FkkA cEij ij dk uacj IysV dk jax nwljk FkkA tgka [kjkst vkbZ ogka ij dksbZ nwljk dyj yxk gqvk ugh FkkA [kjksap uacj IysV ds vklikl FkhA eq>s vfHk;Dr lat; o enu dh ifRu jatw ds chp tcjnLrh voSèk lcaèk cukus dh dksf'k'k dh ckr enu >k us crkbZ Fkha ;g ckr eq>s jatw us ugh crkbZ FkhA jatw esjs ls ?kqa/kV fudkyrh FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd j atw esjs ls cksyrh ugh gksA ,d xkao ds gksus ls enu esjk NksVsHkkbZ tSlk Fkk] og esjs lekt o xks= dk Hkh FkkA ;g lgh gS fd enu us igys tc Fkkus esa fjiksZV djkbZ rc eS lkFk ugh FkkA ;g lgh gS fd eS vLirky igqapk mlls igys enu dh e`R;q gks pqdh Fkha eSus enu dh yk'k ns[kh rc mlds eqag o isV ls [kwu fudy jgk Fkk rFkk gkFk ij iVVh ca/kh gqbZ FkhA ml le; eSus blds vykok dksbZ pksV ugh ns[khA ;g dguk xyr gS fd enu dh yk'k iqfyl us eq>s lkSih gks Lo;a dgk fd jatw dks lkSih FkhA 10. According to learned Senior counsel, a perusal of the statement of PW-1 Sanjeet Kumar would show that he lodged report only on the basis of story as narrated to him by wife of deceased Smt. Ranju Jha, PW-7, and as per the statement, he is not the eye-witness. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-7 in her statement referred to some past dispute between the deceased and the appellant alleging that the he attempted to have illicit relationship with her, however, no complaint number or case number etc., in regards to specific allegation of attempt to make illicit relationship was stated by Ranju Jha in her statement before the trial court. The statement of PW-1 Sanjeet Kumar (the complainant) are completely based on self- designed story as narrated to him by Ranju Jha and, therefore, according to learned Senior counsel PW-1 and PW-7 are not the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident and their evidence is not sufficient to convict the appellant. 11. As learned Senior counsel questioned the story narrated by PW-7 Ranju Jha to the complainant, therefore, he also read statement of PW-7 Ranju Jha, an important witness, as per prosecution. 11. As learned Senior counsel questioned the story narrated by PW-7 Ranju Jha to the complainant, therefore, he also read statement of PW-7 Ranju Jha, an important witness, as per prosecution. Her statement is reproduced as under :- ^^ge usiky ds jgus okys gS fiNys 15 o"kZ ls eS esjs ifr enu>k ds lkFk ?kkphokMk fi.MokMk esa ifjokj ds tkFk jg jgh gw¡A esjs ,d yMdh dkty o yM+dk fçal jgrs gSA esjs ifr enu>k pkSèkjh b.MLVªht es eqjyheuksgj ds ;gk ukSdjh djrs FksA esjs iM+kSl es gkftj vnkyr lat; ekyh jgrk FkkA lat; ekyh us esjs lkFk xyr lacaèk cukus dk ç;kl fd;k Fkk ftl ij esus ;g ckr vius ifr enu>k dks crkbZ FkhA geus iqfyl es bl ckr dh fjiksVZ dh Fkh ftl ij iqfyl us lat; ekyh dks can fd;k FkkA esjs ifr enu>k f'ko'kadj o laftr>k us lat; ekyh dks le>k;k Fkk fd vki ,slk D;ks djrs gksA lat; ekyh fiaVw es?koky dh xkMh pykrk FkkA ÄVuk ls iwoZ lat;ekyh us esjs ifr enu>k dks tku ls ekjus dh èkedh Hkh nh FkhA 19 ekg vçsy 2015 esa lat; 'kke 7 cts esjs ?kj vk;kA tks fidvi cksysjks vkj-ts- 1818 dks ysdj vk;k FkkA vkSj eq>s èkedh nh fd vkt ukSdjh ls NqVrs gh eSa rsjs ifr dks tku ls ekj nwaxkA eq>s jkr 10 cts eksckbZy ij laftr >k us lqpuk nh fd enu>k ds fdlh us xkMh ls VDdj ekj nh gS vkSj vLirky igqapks vkSj eS vLirky fi.MokMk igwphA enu>k dh e`R;q gks pqdh FkhA eq>s ijost us crk;k fd lat; fidvi pykdj yk;k vksj esjs lkeus mlus enu>k ds VDdj ekjh vksj Hkkx x;kA tjg }kjk] vfèkoDrk Jh vtZqu nknfj;k---------------------- ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSus iqfyl dks ;g ugh crk;k gks fd eq>s ;g ckr ijost us crkbZ FkhA ;g ckr iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh- 2 esa fy[kh gqbZ ugha gSA eS lat; dks iM+kSl esa jgus ls 15 o"kZ ls tkurh gwaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd vius ifr enu>k dks ;g ugha crkbZ gks fd lat; us esjs lkFk voS/k laca/k cukus dk iz;kl fd;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd ;g ckr esjs iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh- 2 esa ugha gS] eSus iqfyl esa ;g crk;k fd bl rF; fd tkudkjh esjs ifr dks Hkh gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa vius ifr ds lkFk ugha jgh gwaA eS ijost dks tkurh gw¡ tks esjs vkaxuokMh dk;ZLFky ds ikl jgrk gSA eSa esjs ifr ds ejus ds ckn ls gh tkurh gw¡ igys ugha tkurh FkhA f'ko'kadj ,oa laftr >k esjs tsBth yxrs gS fQj dgk fd xkao ds ukrs tsBth yxrs gSA eS bu nksuks ls ?kwa?kV fudkyrh gw¡ ;g dguk xyr gS fd eS muls ckr ugha djrh gw¡A Lo;a dgk fd eS muls ?kwa?kV fudky dj ckr djrh gwaA eSa ikapoh d{kk rd i<h+ gwaA dkty dh tUe rkjh[k 4 fnlEcj gS o"kZ eq>s ;kn ugh gS Lo;a dgk fd og 13 lky dh gks xbZ gSA ?kVuk jfookj dh gSA ;g lgh gS fd vfHk;qDr ?kVuk ds fnu 'kke dks 7 cts tc esjs ?kj vk;k rc va/ksjk gks x;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ml le; lat; dh fidvi ugh ns[kh gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjk edku ftl xyh es gS ogk xkMh ugh tkrh gksA og fidvi lQsn jax dh Fkh tks fiNsls ihyh FkhA eS lwpuk feyus ds ckn 10 cts djhc vLirky igwaph FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eSus lat; dks esjs ifr ds VDdj ekjrs ugh ns[kkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eS jaft'k ls vfHk;qDr ds fo:) >qBs c;ku ns jgh gwaA** A plain and simple reading of statement of PW-7 as recorded by trial court, as per learned Senior Counsel, would show that PW-7 tried to allege things without referring to any complaint, FIR etc., in regards to any specific past incident; narrated self- designed story of alleged attempt made by the accused to have illicit relationship with her and due to her objection and verbal altercation of deceased with the accused, the alleged incident was committed by accused and, therefore, her evidence is sufficient as per prosecution. 12. While disputing the above version of the prosecution based on the narration of PW-7 Ranju Jha, learned Senior counsel submitted that the story of alleged threatening by the appellant to Ranju Jha on 19.4.2015 at around 7:00 pm is a self-designed story and has no basis. An important fact which the learned Senior Counsel pointed out is that there is a material contradiction and discrepancy in the statement of Ranju Jha, as recorded by the police, which is Exhibit-D/2 and the statement as recorded by the trial court as PW-7 . Learned Senior counsel specifically referred to an important line from the examination in chief of PW-7, wherein she stated that ^^ÄVuk ls iwoZ lat;ekyh us esjs ifr enu>k dks tku ls ekjus dh èkedh Hkh nh FkhA 19 ekg vçsy 2015 esa lat; 'kke 7 cts esjs ?kj vk;kA tks fidvi cksysjks vkj-ts- 1818 dks ysdj vk;k FkkA vkSj eq>s èkedh nh fd vkt ukSdjh ls NqVrs gh eSa rsjs ifr dks tku ls ekj nwaxkA eq>s jkr 10 cts eksckbZy ij laftr >k us lqpuk nh fd enu>k ds fdlh us xkMh ls VDdj ekj nh gS vkSj vLirky igqapks vkSj eS vLirky fi.MokMk igqWaph enu>k dh e`R;q gks pqdh FkhA eq>s ijost us crk;k fd lat; fidvi pykdj yk;k vksj esjs lkeus mlus enu>k ds VDdj ekjh vksj Hkkx x;kA** The relevant lines of statement are sufficient to conclude that PW-7 is not an eye-witness and her version cannot be made basis to hold the appellant guilty, therefore, the judgment passed by the trial court is erroneous on the face of record. 13. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh strongly pointed out the fact that PW-7 stated that she was informed about the incident by one Parveez (PW-12) that the appellant Sanjay came driving Pick Up and he hit deceased-Madan Jha from front and then ran away . According to learned Senior Counsel, therefore, statement of Parveez, recorded as PW-12, are also relevant to know veracity of the version of PW-7. According to learned Senior Counsel, therefore, statement of Parveez, recorded as PW-12, are also relevant to know veracity of the version of PW-7. The statement of PW-12 Parveez are reproduced as under :- ^^eS gky fi.MokMk esa jgrk gwa rFkk Bsdsnkj dk dke djrk gwaA vkt ls lkyHkj igys eS esjs ?kj ls feL=h ds ogka lkys ds yMds dh iMh gqbZ xkMh dks ysus x;k Fkk eS ogka ls fudy jgk Fkk rc HkhM bDVBh gks j[kh Fkh ns[kk rks irk pyk fd ,sDlhMsaV gks x;k gS ftl ij eSus iqfyl Fkkus ij lwpuk nh rFkk vkgr dks ,d VsEiksa esa fcBkdj vLirky jokuk dj fn;kA eS u rks e`rd dks tkurk gwa vkSj u gh eq>s irk fd fdlus e`rd ds VDdj ekjh FkhA uksV% bl Lrj ij vij yksd vfHk;kstd ds fuosnu ij xokg dks i{knzksgh Äksf"kr fd;k x;kA izfrijh{kk }kjk vij yksd vfHk;kstd & ;g dguk xyr gS fd eS fjdks ,sfj;k fljksgh jksM esa O;kikj ds flyflys esa vk;k gksma A ;g lgh gS fd iqfyl us esjs ls iwNrkN dh FkhA esjs iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ ih0 31 ds , ls ch Hkkx ^^ fnukad 19-04-15&&&&?kk;y voLFkk esa FkkA** i<+dj dj lquk;k rks lqu le>dj xokg us ,sls c;ku iqfyl dks ugha nsuk crk;kA esjs iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ ih0 31 ds lh ls Mh Hkkx ^^eS ljdkjh&&&&mldh gR;k dj nhA** i<+dj dj lquk;k rks lqu le>dj xokg us ,sls c;ku iqfyl dks ugh nsuk crk;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSus lat; dqekj dks enu>k dh lkbZfdy ds VDdj ekjrs ns[kk gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd lat; dqekj esjk ifjfpr gksus dh otg ls U;k;ky; esa >waBs c;ku ns jgk gwaA** According to learned Senior Counsel PW-12 was declared hostile by the prosecution. In examination in chief PW-12 stated that he has no acquaintance with the deceased and that he was not aware about the fact as to who hit the deceased. He simply informed the police about the incident. The statement of PW-12 shows that when he has no acquaintance with the deceased-Madan Jha and he did not inform PW-7 about the incident, therefore, the statement of PW-7, wife of the deceased, does not inspire confidence and her complete version is doubtful. 14. He simply informed the police about the incident. The statement of PW-12 shows that when he has no acquaintance with the deceased-Madan Jha and he did not inform PW-7 about the incident, therefore, the statement of PW-7, wife of the deceased, does not inspire confidence and her complete version is doubtful. 14. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that PW-1 Sanjeet Kumar in his statement before the trial court stated that he was informed about the incident by one Reporter, namely, Vikram Purohit. According to PW-1, Reporter Vikram Purohit informed him on telephone that some vehicle has hit Madan Jha and his body is lying in hospital. 15. After reading statements of PW-1, PW-7 and PW-12, learned Senior Counsel submitted that it appears that the first information about the alleged incident was given by Reporter Vikram Purohit to PW-1, however, the said Reporter was not produced in evidence by the prosecution before the trial court and in the absence of the same, the complete version of PW-1 and PW-7, by which both the persons tried to implicate the accused-appellant in a false criminal case, looses its sanctity and foundation and, therefore, the learned trial court committed serious mistake while ignoring the serious contradictions and infirmities in the evidence of the about two witness of the prosecution. The statement of PW-12 further destroyed the version of PW-7, as he did not inform her anything about the incident. 16. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the statement of PW-4 Sangeet Jha, who also as per the prosecution gave evidence against the appellant and, therefore, he referred to his statement also. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the statement of this witness is also based on the version narrated to him by Ranju Jha. 16. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the statement of PW-4 Sangeet Jha, who also as per the prosecution gave evidence against the appellant and, therefore, he referred to his statement also. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the statement of this witness is also based on the version narrated to him by Ranju Jha. The relevant lines of statement of PW-4 Sangeet Jha is reproduced as under :- ^^eS enu >k dks tkurk Fkk] tks vius ifjokj ds lkFk ?kkaphokMk fi.MokMk esa jgrk FkkA gkftj vnkyr lat; enu >k dh ifRu jatw ds lkFk xkyh xykSt djrk Fkk] eq>s enu >k o jatw >k us bl ckjs esa crk;k FkkA gkftj vnkyr lat; us jatw dks cktkj esa ,d FkIiM yxk;k Fkk ;g ckr jatw us eq>s crkbZ FkhA fnukad 20-04-15 dks ftl fnu enu >k ds lkFk ?kVuk gqbZ ml fnu gkftj vknyr lat; jatw >k ds ikl x;k Fkk vkSj /kedh nh fd eS enu >k dks ekj nwaxk o mls ftUnk ugh vkus nwaxkA enu >k jkr ukS cts QSDVªh ls NqVdj lkbZfdy ls ?kj vk jgk Fkk] osyde pkSjk;s ls FkksMk vkxs tc enu >k igqapk] rks lat; us viuh xkMh enu >k ds mij ihNs ls p<+k nhA xkMh ds uacj vkj ts 38&1818 gSA eq>s esjs HkkbZlkgc us ;g lwpuk nh rc eSa vLirky fi.MokMk igqapk tgka enu >k ds vkbZ pksVksa ls mldh e`R;q gks x;h FkhA eq>s vLirky fi.MokMk esa jatw >k us Hkh lat; }kjk /kedh nsdj tkuk crk;k FkkA çfrijh{kk }kjk vfèkoDrk Jh vtZwu nknfj;k okLrs vfHk;qDr& ;g lgh gS fd eSus ?kVuk gksrs ugha ns[kh Lo;a dgk fd eS ml le; ÄVukLFky ij ugha FkkA eS vLirky lk<+s ukS cts ds ckn igqapk Fkk] eS igqapk rc enu >k dh e`R;q gks pqdh FkhA enu >k ds lhus ij pksV ls lwtu vkbZ gqbZ Fkh vkSj mlds flj ij pksV Fkh ftlesa ls [kwu vk jgk FkkA eS vLirky igqapk rc ogka cgqr ls yksx Fks] eS mu lcds uke ugh crk ldrkA jatwnsoh Hkh [kcj feyrs gh vLirky vk x;h Fkh tks esjs igqapus ds igys vk x;h FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd jatw us eq>s vLirky esa dqN ugh crk;k gks Lo;a dgk fd lat; }kjk èkedh nsus dh ckr crkbZ FkhA ;g lgh gS fd eSus ?kVuk dkfjr djrs gq, ugh ns[kk FkkA** According to learned Senior counsel, the cross-examination of PW-4 sufficiently shows that he is not an eye-witness and further he made all statement on the basis of what was stated to him by Ranju Jha. There are serious contradictions which are material in nature in the story/version which PW-4 stated in his statement before the trial court, therefore, the evidence of this witness is also not reliable and sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 17. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the statement of Investigating Officer i.e. Paras Choudhary, whose statement was recorded as PW-6. By referring to the examination in chief of PW-6, learned Senior counsel submitted that without any basis, more specifically, when there is no eye-witness of the entire incident, the Investigating Officer stated that due to enmity and revenge, the accused-appellant hit the deceased, for which, he also threatened the wife of deceased and, therefore, on that basis he conducted the entire investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellant. 18. While referring to the cross-examination of Investigating Officer Paras Choudhary (PW-6), learned counsel submitted that, the Investigating Officer even after conducting complete investigation failed to state any relevant fact which can lead to a definite conclusion that the alleged offence was committed by the appellant only. According to learned Senior Counsel the complete investigation is faulty and has been conducted in a very casual and negligent manner. The Investigating Officer without any basis filed charge-sheet against the appellant and further the learned trial court also believed the version of the Investigating Officer and the story of the prosecution while passing impugned judgment of conviction, which is seriously doubtful on the face of record. 19. On the basis of the above submissions, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh, after pointing out serious material contradictions and infirmities in the story of the prosecution submitted that there is no eye-witness of the entire incident, therefore, its a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant by connecting the chain of evidence and, therefore, the judgment passed by the trial court is erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court by allowing the present appeal. 20. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. 20. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Sarwan Singh Rathore, appearing for the State, strongly supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court and submitted that the prosecution on the basis of statement of PW-1, the complainant and PW-7 Ranju Jha, wife of the deceased, sufficiently proved the fact that as the conduct of the accused-appellant of attempting to make illicit relationship with PW-7 was the point of dispute and, therefore, the deceased reported the previous conduct of accused to the police, due to which, in order to take revenge, accused killed the deceased by his Pick-up Van on the fateful night, on account of which the deceased-Madan Jha died. 21. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that PW-7 in her statement clearly stated the fact that just few hours prior to the incident, the accused threatened her that he would kill her husband after he leaves the factory and he did that, therefore, the complete evidence, as on record, was treated sufficient by the learned trial court and there is no error in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC with imprisonment for life. He further submitted that the present appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 22. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After perusing record of trial court, we may now examine the case as set-up by the accused appellant Sanjay Kumar for challenging the judgment dated 03.05.2016. As per learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh, PW-1 and PW-7 are not the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident and, therefore, their version of incident has no foundation and the same cannot be a base to convict accused-appellant for serious offence under Section 302 IPC. This Court after going through the written report (Exhibit-P/1) dated 20.4.2015 noted that in the written report PW-1 did not state the fact that he was informed about the incident by Reporter Vikram Purohit, whereas by improving his version before the trial court, he stated that he was informed about the incident by Reporter Vikram Purohit, who was not produced in evidence by the prosecution. This Court note that it is a serious contradiction in the version of PW-1. 23. This Court note that it is a serious contradiction in the version of PW-1. 23. While considering arguments of learned Senior counsel regarding contradiction in the statements of PW-1 and PW-7, this Court minutely examined the statement of both the witnesses (PW-1 & PW-7) and noted that they are not the eye-witness and this fact has also been admitted by PW-7 Ranju Jha as she stated that ^^ÄVuk ls iwoZ lat;ekyh us esjs ifr enu>k dks tku ls ekjus dh èkedh Hkh nh FkhA 19 ekg vçsy 2015 esa lat; 'kke 7 cts esjss ?kj vk;kA tks fidvi cksysjks vkj-ts- 1818 dks ysdj vk;k FkkA vkSj eq>s èkedh nh fd vkt ukSdjh ls NqVrs gh eSa rsjs ifr dks tku ls ekj nwaxkA eq>s jkr 10 cts eksckbZy ij laftr >k us lqpuk nh fd enu>k ds fdlh us xkMh ls VDdj ekj nh gS vkSj vLirky igqapks vkSj eS vLirky fi.MokMk igwphA enu>k dh e`R;q gks pqdh FkhA eq>s ijost us crk;k fd lat; fidvi pykdj yk;k vksj esjs lkeus mlus enu>k ds VDdj ekjh vksj Hkkx x;kA** , which shows that she was informed about the incident by Parveez, PW-12. This Court while examining the statement of PW-12, Parveez, noted that this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and he expressed complete ignorance about the incident and stated that he has no acquaintance with the deceased, therefore, there is no specific evidence on record as to who informed the incident to PW-1 and PW-7 and who hit the deceased. According to PW-1 Sanjeet Kumar, he was informed about the incident by Reporter Vikram Purohit and according to PW-7 Ranju Jha she was informed about the incident by Parveez (PW-12), whereas PW-12 did not make any such statement, rather he expressed complete ignorance. Further, Reporter Vikram Purohit, who as per PW-1 first informed him about the incident was not produced in evidence by the prosecution. The above serious contradictions, as noted in the story of prosecution witnesses by this Court, are fatal to the prosecution and the benefit of this must go in favour of the appellant. 24. This Court has also considered statement of other witnesses, however, none of them able to prove guilt of accused-appellant and, therefore, in absence of any concrete evidence from the side of prosecution, the complete foundation of prosecution looses its strength. 24. This Court has also considered statement of other witnesses, however, none of them able to prove guilt of accused-appellant and, therefore, in absence of any concrete evidence from the side of prosecution, the complete foundation of prosecution looses its strength. PW-7 & PW-1 on the basis of their independent version and common foundation of revenge story, as designed by them tried to prove the guilt of accused, which is not sufficient, according to this Court after minute examination of the statements of all the material witnesses. Revenue theory is a two-edged weapon as it can be used either way. No witness of the prosecution including PW-1 and PW-7 was able to prove revenge theory before the trial court by way of its evidence, therefore, this Court is not satisfied with the arguments as raised by learned Public Prosecutor by which he tried to support the judgment passed by the trial court. 25. The prosecution tried to prove its case before the learned trial court on the basis of revenge theory as designed and presented by PW-7 and PW-1 and, therefore, the law in regards to the revenge theory as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court needs to be examined. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aslam Alias Imran Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 365 in para-22 held as under :- “22. It is a settled law that enmity is a double-edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication. From the nature of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the possibility of the present appellant being falsely implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.” Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maukam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2025 INSC 435, again examined the story of enmity in para-6, and observed as under :- “ 6. The said statement regarding animosity, brought out in cross-examination, is noticed by us, fully realising that, motive of enmity is a doubled edged weapon. Animosity alleged can even lead to an accusation of false allegation on the part of the complainant to deliberately implicate the accused. The said statement regarding animosity, brought out in cross-examination, is noticed by us, fully realising that, motive of enmity is a doubled edged weapon. Animosity alleged can even lead to an accusation of false allegation on the part of the complainant to deliberately implicate the accused. This makes it imminent that we examine the testimony of witnesses with a hawk’s eye to understand whether it is truthful or the witnesses are to be disbelieved. The relationship of the ocular witnesses with the deceased is of no consequence, as the possibility of outsiders being available inside the house of the injured is very remote. It also has to be kept in mind that all the ocular witnesses were injured which makes their testimony credible and believable.” 26. In light of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aslam Alias Imran (supra) and Maukam Singh (supra) , this Court noted that, though, the revenge theory was designed and presented by PW-7 and PW-1 with the support of other interested witnesses, however, they failed to prove the same by any documentary evidence which could be in the form of any criminal case or complaint, FIR etc., lodged against the accused either by deceased-Madan Jha, while he was alive, or by his wife Ranju Jha (PW-7) or any relative reporting the alleged attempt of accused to make illicit relationship with PW-7 Ranju Jha. The prosecution exhibited document i.e. Exhibit-P/20 dated 14.2.2014 whereby police made a complaint against accused-appellant facing unruly behaviour, however, a perusal of Exhibit-P/20 nowhere shows that it was in respect of any allegation as presented in her story by PW-7 or to be more specific it does not contain any fact regarding previous attempt alleged to have been made by appellant for making illicit relationship with Ranju Jha. This document i.e. Exhibit-P/20 nowhere supports the case of prosecution . Following the law in regard to revenge and enmity theory as examined by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above two judgments, we fail to find any concrete evidence in the statements of material witnesses which can prove the guilt of the accused. This document i.e. Exhibit-P/20 nowhere supports the case of prosecution . Following the law in regard to revenge and enmity theory as examined by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above two judgments, we fail to find any concrete evidence in the statements of material witnesses which can prove the guilt of the accused. It appears that on presumptions, in absence of any eye-witness, as noted, by the trial court, name of appellant was reported to police and the police by blindly believing on the story of the complainant (PW-1) and PW-7 filed charge-sheet against him, which was further casually believed by the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment. 27. In the last we shall may examine the findings as recorded by the learned trial court by which it convicted the accused-appellant. 27. In the last we shall may examine the findings as recorded by the learned trial court by which it convicted the accused-appellant. The learned trial court discussed the evidence in para-17 to 24 and recorded its findings, which is being reproduced as under :- ^^17- vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ,d lk{kh ijost ds dFku ys[kc) fd;s x;s] ftlus vuqlaèkku ds nkSjku crk;k Fkk fd ?kVuk ds fnu 19-04-2015 dks tc og jkr dk djhc 9-15 cts vius okgu ls fljksgh jksM dh rjQ vk jgk Fkk] rc vkxs pyus okyh fidvi us ,d lkbfdy okys ds VDdj ekj nh vkSj ogka ls Hkkx x;k] mlus ml ?kk;y ds fy, iqfyl esa lwpuk nh vkSj mls og ysdj vLirky x;k] tgk¡ ij mldh e`R;q gqbZ vkSj vfHk;qDr us iqjkuh jaft'k ls ;g Vddj ekjh FkhA çdj.k dk ,dek= p'enhn lk{kh mä ijost gh Fkk vkSj og iw.kZr;k i{kæksgh ?kksf"kr gqvk vkSj mlus vfHk;kstu dk dksbZ leFkZu ugha fd;kA vc ;fn vU; lk{kh esa ns[kk tk, rks ihM&2 yYyu feJk] ihM&3 f'ko'kadj i{kæksgh ?kksf"kr gq, vkSj mUgksaus vfHk;kstu dk flQZ ;gk¡ rd leFkZu fd;k fd enu>k dh yk'k ds dkxtkr iqfyl us cuk;s Fks] bu lk{khx.k dk i{kæksgh ?kksf"kr gksuk LoHkkfod Hkh Fkk] D;ksafd ;g vfHk;qDr ds xkao ds ikl ds jgus okys gSA vfHk;qDr vkSj mudk ftyk lhrke<+h fcgkj ,d gh gSA 18- vc ;fn vU; lk{khx.k dks ns[ks rks lk{kh ihM&1 lathrdqekj] ftlus dh Fkkus esa fjiksVZ nh Fkh] mldk ;g dFku jgk fd vfHk;qDr lat; us enu>k dh iRuh ds lkFk voSèk lacaèk cukus dk ç;kl fd;k Fkk] bl ckr dks ysdj e`rd enu>k vkSj vfHk;qDr ds chp >xMk Hkh gqvk Fkk vkSj e`rd us Fkkus esa nks ckj fjiksVZ Hkh nh FkhA ÄVuk ds fnu 'kke dks enu>k dh iRuh jatw us mls ?kj vkdj crk;k Fkk fd lat; fidvi ysdj mlds ?kj vk;k Fkk vkSj èkedh nsdj x;k fd og mlds ifr dks ukSdjh ls NwVrs gh ekj nsxkA bl ckr ds djhc vkèkk ikSu ?k.Vs ckn foØe iqjksfgr i=dkj us mls crk;k fd enu>k dh yk'k vLirky esa iMh gqbZ gS] mlds fdlh us VDdj ekj nh gS] irk fd;k rks ekywe gqvk fd lqjsUæ esokMk dh xkMh la[;k vkjts 38 th,&1818 ls lat; us enu>k ds VDdj ekjdj e`R;q dkfjr dh vkSj bl rF; dh mlus fjiksVZ Fkkus esa çLrqr dh FkhA vkxs ;g lk{kh iqfyl }kjk enu>k dh yk'k ds dkxtkr bR;kfn cukus ds dze esa dFku djrk gSA blus çfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k fd mlus lk{kh dks enu>k ds VDdj ekjrs gq, ugha ns[kk FkkA bl lk{kh us crk;k fd og ,DlhMsaV ds ckn xkMh dks ns[kus x;k Fkk] og xkMh lQsn jax dh Fkh rFkk jkbV lkbM dh tkyh VwVh gqbZ Fkh vkSj cEij ds [kjksap vk;h gqbZ FkhA enu>k mlds lekt vkSj xks= dk gSA 19- blh&rjg ihM&4 laxhr >k dk dFku jgk fd lat; enu>k dh iRuh jatw ds lkFk xkyh xykSp djrk Fkk] bl ckr ds fy, enu>k vkSj jatw us crk;k FkkA ,d ckj jatw us cktkj esa lat; ds FkIiM Hkh ekjk Fkk vkSj tc enu us vkyck fn;k rks og mlls ekjihV djus yxkA bl lk{kh dk ;g Hkh dFku jgk fd mlus Hkh ,d ckj lat; dks le>k;k Fkk fd og ,slk D;ksa dj jgk gSA ÄVuk ds fnu lat; }kjk jatw dks enu>k dks ekjus dh èkedh nsus ds ckjs esa Hkh ;g lk{kh dFku djrk gSA bl lk{kh ds vuqlkj ?kVuk ds fnu jkr dks ukS cts tc enu>k ukSdjh ls ?kj vk jgk Fkk] rks lat; us ml ij ihNs ls xkMh p<+k nhA vkxs lk{kh iqfyl }kjk enu>k ds yk'k ds dkxtkr cukus vkSj uD'kk ekSdk cukus ds Øe esa dFku djrk gSA mlus çfrijh{kk esa Li"V Lohdkj fd;k fd jatw>k dh ckr dks ysdj mlds vkSj vfHk;qDr lat; ds chp dgk&lquh gqbZ FkhA fdUrq ;g dguk xyr gS fd mlus lat; ds lkFk ekjihV dh gksA mlus ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd mlus ?kVuk gksrs ugha ns[kh FkhA lkbfdy mlus iqfyl Fkkus esa gh ns[kh FkhA 20- bu lc ds vfrfjDr ,d egRoiw.kZ lkf{k;k enu>k dh iRuh ihM&7 jatw>k gS] mlus crk;k fd og vius ifr o cPpksa ds lkFk ?kkaphokMk fi.MokMk esa jg jgh gS] muds iMksl esa jgus okys lat; ekyh us mlds lkFk xyr lacaèk cukus dk ç;kl fd;k Fkk] mlus ;g ckr vius ifr dks crkbZ Fkh vkSj iqfyl esa fjiksVZ dh Fkh] iqfyl us lat; dks can Hkh fd;k FkkA bl lkf{k;k ds vuqlkj mlds ifr enu>k] f'ko'kadj vkSj lathr>k us lat; dks le>k;k FkkA mldk dFku jgk fd ?kVuk ls iwoZ lat; us mlds ifr enu>k dks tku ls ekjus dh èkedh nh FkhA ?kVuk ds fnu 'kke dks lkr cts vfHk;qDr mlds ?kj vk;k Fkk vkSj dgk fd vkt mlds ifr dks ukSdjh ls NqVrs gh og tku ls ekj nsxk vkSj mlh jkr 10-00 cts mls lwpuk feyh dh mlds ifr dks fdlh us xkMh ls VDdj ekj nh vkSj vLirky igq¡pks] rc og fi.MokMk vLirky igq¡ph] ogk¡ ij enu>k dh e`R;q gks pqdh FkhA bl lkf{k;k us crk;k fd mls ijost us crk;k Fkk fd lat; us fidvi pykdj mlds ifr ds VDdj ekj nh vkSj VDdj ekjdj Hkkx x;k FkkA bl lkf{k;k us çfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k fd iqfyl c;ku çn'kZ Mh&2 esa ijost }kjk mls ;g crkuk fd lat; us enu>k ds fidvi ls VDdj ekjh gS] ugha fy[kk gqvk gSA fdUrq mlus ;g ckr Hkh Lohdkj dh gS fd mlus ;g ckr iqfyl dks crk;h FkhA mlus crk;k fd ijost mlds vkaxuckMh dk;ZLFky ds ikl jgrk gS] blfy, mls tkurh gSA mlus Lohdkj fd;k fd ?kVuk ds fnu gh 'kke dks lkr cts tc lat; mlds ?kj ij vk;k rc vaèksjk gks x;k Fkk vkSj mlus lat; }kjk mlds ifr ds VDdj ekjuk ugha ns[kk FkkA 21- ,d vU; lk{kh ihM&8 eqjyh euksgj dks Hkh vfHk;kstu us ijhf{kr djok;k vkSj mlus crk;k fd lat; us enu>k dh iRuh jatw>k ds lkFk voSèk lacaèk cukus dk ç;kl fd;k Fkk vkSj bl ckr dks ysdj enu>k vkSj lat; esa >xMk Hkh gqvk FkkA mls lat; }kjk enu>k dh gR;k djus dh èkedh nsus ckcr~ jatw>k us crk;k FkkA mlus Li"V crk;k fd og laxhr>k ds lkFk lat; ds edku gkmflax cksMZ ij x;k Fkk] ogk¡ ij fidvi vkjts 38 th,&1818 [kMh Fkh vkSj mldh tkyh VwVh gqbZ FkhA vkxs iqfyl }kjk ekSdk ns[kus ds dze esa lk{kh dFku djrk gSA gkykafd vfHk;kstu us bl lk{kh dks i{kæksgh ?kksf"kr fd;k gS] fdUrq mldk ;g dFku jgk fd tc ekSdk rLnhd fd;k x;k rc vfHk;qDr lat; Hkh mlds lkFk FkkA mlus bl rF; dks xyr crk;k fd og enu>k dk ?kj ugha tkurk gks vkSj ;g Hkh xyr gS fd og ÄVuk ds fnu lat; ds ?kj ugha x;k gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd mlds lkeus lkbfdy cjken ugha dh xbZ gksA 22- bl&rjg ;fn vfHk;kstu ds lexz lk{; dk foospu djsa rks ;g lgh gS fd ÄVuk dk dksbZ p'enhn lk{kh ugha gS vkSj tks ,dek= p'enhn lk{kh ijost dk gksuk vfHk;kstu crkdj vk;k gS] og iw.kZr;k i{kæksgh ?kksf"kr gqvk gSA fdUrq vfHk;kstu ds lk{kh ihM&1 lathr dqekj vkSj ihM&4 laxhr >k ds dFkuksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDr] e`rd enu>k dh iRuh ls voSèk lacaèk cukuk pkgrk Fkk vkSj tc bldh f'kdk;r e`rd dh iRuh us vius ifr ls dh rks mlus vfHk;qDr dks vksyck fn;k] bl ij vfHk;qDr us mlds lkFk >xMk fd;k vkSj Fkkus esa fjiksVZ dh x;hA bl rF; dh iqf"V Lo;a jatw>k ihM&7 ds dFkuksa ls Hkh gksrh gSA 23- bu lc ds vfrfjDr i=koyh ij ,d nLrkost vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls çn'kZ ih&20 ds :i esa çnf'kZr djok;k x;k gS] ftlds vuqlkj fnukad 14-02-2014 dks lat; vfHk;qDr us enu>k ds lkFk >xMk fd;k Fkk vkSj iqfyl us mä lat; dqekj dks fxjrkj Hkh fd;k FkkA ihM&1 lathr dqekj vkSj ihM&4 laxhr >k ls bl rF; ij dksbZ çfrijh{kk gh ugha dh xbZA vfHk;qDr us enu>k dh iRuh ds lkFk voSèk lacaèk cukus dk ç;kl fd;k vkSj ?kVuk ds fnu 'kke dks vkdj mlus jatw>k dks èkedh nh fd vkt mldk ifr ukSdjh ls NwVsxk] rc og mls ekj nsxkA bl rF; ij e`rd dh iRuh ihM&7 jatw>k ls Hkh dksbZ çfrijh{kk ugha dh xbZ fd vfHk;qDr us mls ?kVuk ds fnu 'kke dks mlds ?kj ij vkdj enu>k dh gR;k djus ds fy, èkedh nh Fkh rks ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa tc dksbZ çfrijh{kk dh gh ugha xbZ] rks mldh lk{; [kf.Mr ugha gqbZA vfHk;kstu ds lk{kh ihM&1 lathr dqekj] ihM&4 laxhr>k vkSj ihM&7 jatw>k dh lk{; ,d egRoiw.kZ lekurk j[krh gS vkSj budh lk{; dks ugha ekuus dk dksbZ dkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha gSA jatw>k us Li"V crk;k fd mls ?kj vkdj vfHk;qDr èkedh nsdj x;k Fkk fd mlds ifr ds ukSdjh ls NwVrs gh mlds gR;k dj nsxk vkSj mldk ifj.kke enu>k ds ukSdjh ls NwVus ds ckn lkeus vk;k rks vkt Hkys gh vfHk;kstu dk dksbZ lk{kh ?kVuk dk p'enhn lk{kh ugha jgk gks] fdUrq ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{kh bruh lq–<+ gS] ftlls Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDr us enu>k ds okgu ls VDdj ekjdj gR;k dkfjr dh gSA okgu dks mis{kkiw.kZ vkSj ykijokghiwoZd pykus dh dksbZ çfrijh{kk vfHk;kstu ds lk{khx.k ls ugha dh xbZ] blls Hkh Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDr lat; tks èkedh nsdj x;k Fkk] mls mlus enu>k dh e`R;q dkfjr dj fdz;kfUor fd;k gSA 24- bu lc ds vfrfjDr okgu Lokeh ihM&11 lqjsUæ dqekj dk dFku jgk fd mlds okgu ij vfHk;qDr lat; dqekj djhc ,d o"kZ ls pkyd gS vkSj mls VDdj ekjus ckcr~ crk;k] tc og dksVk esa vius ifjokj lfgr x;k gqvk Fkk] rc lwpuk nh FkhA blls Li"V gS fd tks okgu vkjts 38 th,&1818 fidvi iqfyl us tCr dh Fkh] ml okgu ij ?kVuk ds fnu fopkfjr fd;k x;k vfHk;qDr lat; Mªkboj Fkk] vc lat; dks ;g çekf.kr djuk Fkk fd og ?kVuk ds oDr pkyd ugha Fkk] fdUrq mldh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ çfrj{kk ugha yh xbZA ftl fidvi xkMh vkjts&38th,&1818 dks lat; pyk jgk Fkk] mldk ?kVuk ds fnu tkyh VwVus ls ;g uqdlku dSls gqvk] ;g vfHk;qDr Li"V ugha dj ik;kA enu>k dh lkbfdy dk jax fidvi xkMh ds cEij ij yxk gqvk ik;k x;k] blls Hkh Li"V gS fd blh fidvi ls] ftls vfHk;qDr pykrk Fkk] enu>k ds VDdj yxhA bls ihM&10 nwj eksgEen lk{kh ls Hkh leFkZu feyrk gS] tks fd çdj.k esa tCr'kqnk okgu dk ;kaf=d ijh{k.k djrk gSA blus Li"V dFku fd;k fd fidvi dk jsfM;sVj tkyh eqph gqbZ Fkh] cEij vkSj uacj IysV ij rktk jxM ds fu'kku Fks] ftl ij lkbfdy dk dkyk dyj fpidk gqvk Fkk vkSj blus tc lkbfdy dk ijh{k.k fd;k rks lkbfdy dh rkfM;k VwVh gqbZ Fkh vkSj Oghy doj vkfn eqps gq, Fks] mlus çfrijh{kk esa Li"V dFku fd;k fd ;g dguk xyr gS fd fidvi ij lkbfdy ls Vdjkus ds dksbZ fu'kku ugha gksA bl&rjg Åij of.kZr lHkh lk{khx.k vfHk;kstu dgkuh dk iw.kZr;k leFkZu djrs gSA** 28. This Court, after reading the above findings as recorded in the judgment, noted that the learned trial court on the one hand recorded its own observation regarding important witness having turned hostile i.e. Parveez (PW-12) and further it relied upon the statement of PW-4 Sangeet Jha while recording its findings and on the other hand recorded that this witness stated that he did not witness the incident. Contradictory findings have been recorded by the learned trial court in all the above paras, which are quite surprising. After reading the findings of the trial court in para 17 to 24 and after recording serious contradictions as noted by this Court in previous paras, this Court noted that the learned trial court blindly relied upon the story of prosecution of alleged attempt by accused to make illicit relationship with PW-7 Ranju Jha, wife of the deceased, and accepted it as a revenge theory, due to which the accused killed the deceased by hitting him by his Pick-up Van. After detailed examination of record, this Court note that there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record, so produced by the prosecution, which could lead to a definite conclusion that the alleged offence was committed by the accused-appellant. Law in regard to conviction which must be based on concrete, specific and clear evidence is well settled and in the absence of the same, no court should convict any person on unreliable and unconfirmed evidence of the prosecution, more specifically, when there are material serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of material witnesses as recorded by the trial court. Hon’ble Supreme Court repeatedly by way of its various judgments have cautioned trial court not to convict on assumptions and presumptions and should not believe the story of prosecution blindly until and unless the prosecution succeeds in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt by connecting the chain of events with the support of evidence of material witnesses. Without concrete and specific evidence, no conviction be made, that too in a case based on circumstantial evidence. In the present case, in which allegations are of offence under Section 302 IPC, the duty of the prosecution as well as the trial court becomes more important; until and unless there are evidence which leads to a definite conclusion, without any other possible conclusion, about the guilt of accused, no conviction should be made. 29. In the present case, in which allegations are of offence under Section 302 IPC, the duty of the prosecution as well as the trial court becomes more important; until and unless there are evidence which leads to a definite conclusion, without any other possible conclusion, about the guilt of accused, no conviction should be made. 29. After examining complete record of the trial court, noticing erroneous findings recorded by the trial court in para-17 to 23 of the judgment, serious and material contradictions noted in the statements of PW-1 Sanjeet Kumar, PW-4 Sangeet Jha, PW-4 Ranju Jha and PW-12 Parveez (hostile witness), we have reached to the definite conclusion that the judgment passed by the trial court is erroneous and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in the case based on circumstantial evidence. As far as evidence of PW-10 Dur Mohammad, his sole testimony cannot be the basis to convict the accused. 30. Admittedly, as per evidence of prosecution and also as per statement recorded by trial court, there is no eye-witness of incident and the complete case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned trial court in para-23 of the judgment discussed Exhibit-P/20 document, which was exhibited by the prosecution. This document is complaint made by police dated 14.2.2014, by which, the unruly behaviour of accused was reported. By this document, the story of prosecution was believed by the trial court as by this document the previous conduct of the appellant was brought on record. 31. This Court has examined Exhibit-P/20 dated 14.2.2014, which is a complaint made by SHO, P.S. Pindwara, District Sirohi regarding some verbal altercation happened between the deceased and the accused. This complaint was made under Section 151 & 107 Cr. P.C. This complaint does not contain any fact regarding attempt made by accused to make illicit relationship with Ranju Jha. Further this complaint is dated 14.2.2014 and alleged incident occurred after almost 14 months i.e. on 19.4.2015. PW-7 Ranju Jha, who narrated the story of alleged attempt as made by appellant with her to all the witnesses, however, none of the witness by way of any documentary evidence failed to show that any complaint, FIR etc., was ever lodged against accused immediately prior to the alleged incident. PW-7 Ranju Jha, who narrated the story of alleged attempt as made by appellant with her to all the witnesses, however, none of the witness by way of any documentary evidence failed to show that any complaint, FIR etc., was ever lodged against accused immediately prior to the alleged incident. The incident dated 14.2.2014 is more than 14 months old and is not related to alleged attempt as stated in complaint and evidence. The prosecution should not have based its entire allegation on the basis of unproved previous conduct, that too, without any documentary evidence, was the alleged motive behind committing the offence. The learned trial court failed to notice that prior to the alleged incident dated 19.4.2015, no incident regarding the conduct of appellant was reported in the near past to the police or any Authority. On the basis of a single old incident, which also, does not prove the alleged conduct of the accused, presumption cannot be drawn against accused in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. 32. The law in respect of circumstantial evidence is well settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharahstra reported in 1984 (4) SCC 116 while examining the issue of circumstantial evidence laid down five golden principles to be followed before reaching to the conclusion that the accused has committed the alleged offence. The relevant paras of the judgment as passed in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) are reproduced as under:- “151. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/00378/1952: 1953CriLJ129. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of latter decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh: (1969)3SCC198 and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0168/1971 : 1972CriLJ473. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/00378/1952: 1953CriLJ129. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of latter decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh: (1969)3SCC198 and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0168/1971 : 1972CriLJ473. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant’s case (at pp.345-46 of AIR) (supra): It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 152. 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 : 1973CriLJ1783 where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is 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. 153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 33. The learned trial court failed to follow the above five golden principles before reaching to the conclusion that the accused- appellant committed the offence. This Court noted that the prosecution failed to connect chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt to prove guilt of the accused. 34. This Court noted that there is no eye-witness, there are serious discrepancies in the fact of first reporting of incident in the statement of PW-1 & PW-7 and further PW-12, who stated to have informed PW-7 about the incident turned hostile. Further, most importantly Reporter Vikram Purohit, who as per statement of PW-1 himself informed him about the incident, was not produced in evidence by the prosecution sufficiently shows that the prosecution failed to connect chain of evidence so as to prove guilt of the accused. The finding of trial court in regard to paint-marks on Pick-up Van and cycle cannot be the sole basis for reaching to a definite conclusion that the alleged incident was caused by the appellant by driving the vehicle and hitting the cycle of deceased from back, on account of which, he suffered injuries and died. 35. In the cases which are based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution for proving guilt of accused also need to prove last seen theory during trial. 36. The law in respect of last seen evidence is also well settled. None of the eye-witnesses in the present case, which are material as per case of the prosecution, failed to prove the last seen theory of the prosecution. 36. The law in respect of last seen evidence is also well settled. None of the eye-witnesses in the present case, which are material as per case of the prosecution, failed to prove the last seen theory of the prosecution. Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the last seen theory, while considering the previous judgment in the case of Sahadevan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 6 SCC page 403. The relevant paras of the judgment passed in the case of Sahadevan (supra) are as under :- “30. With the development of law, the theory of last seen has become a definite tool in the hands of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. This concept is also accepted in various judgments of this Court. The Court has taken the consistent view that where the only circumstantial evidence taken resort to by the prosecution is that the accused and deceased were last seen together, it may raise suspicion but it is not independently sufficient to lead to a finding of guilt. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar [1994 Supp.(2) SCC 372], this Court took the view that the where the appellant was alleged to have gone to the house of one Sitaram in the evening of 19th July, 1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram, the evidence was very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it was accepted that they were there, it would, at best, amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been last seen together with the deceased. The Court further observed that it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record a finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction, on that basis alone, can be founded. 31. Even in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.V. Mahesh [ (2003) 3 SCC 353 ], this Court held that merely being last seen together is not enough. What has to be established in a case of this nature is definite evidence to indicate that the deceased had been done to death of which the respondent is or must be aware as also proximate to the time of being last seen together. No such clinching evidence is put forth. What has to be established in a case of this nature is definite evidence to indicate that the deceased had been done to death of which the respondent is or must be aware as also proximate to the time of being last seen together. No such clinching evidence is put forth. It is no doubt true that even in the absence corpus delicti it is possible to establish in an appropriate case commission of murder on appropriate material being made available to the Court. 32. In the case of State of U.P. v. Satish [(2005) 3SCC 114], this Court had stated that the principle of last seen comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. 33. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. But this theory should be applied while taking into consideration the case of the prosecution in its entirety and keeping in mind the circumstances that precede and follow the point of being so last seen.” 37. This Court fails to find proof of last seen theory in the story of the prosecution and further there is no finding in this regard in the judgment of the learned trial court. Merely on the basis of unproven alleged enmity as narrated by PW-7 and PW-1, the trial court based its conviction, that too in a case based on circumstantial evidence, which is a serious mistake committed by it and on account of this the complete findings are unsustainable and erroneous on the face of record. 38. On the basis of incomplete chain of evidence no conviction can be made without strictly following the five golden principles as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra). 39. The prosecution also failed to prove revenge theory beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the present appeal filed by the accused-appellant deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No.83/2015 (State of Rajasthan Vs. 39. The prosecution also failed to prove revenge theory beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the present appeal filed by the accused-appellant deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No.83/2015 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Sanjay Kumar) is quashed and set aside. 40. The appellant is in jail. He be released if not required to be detained in any other case. The record of trial court be sent back forthwith. 41. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S, accused-appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond of the like amount, before the learned trial court, which shall be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the accused-appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as he would be called upon to do so.