State of Rajasthan v. Moolchand Ors.), vide which

: Mr. Sudesh Saini, Addl. GA with Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. GA, Mr. Vibhor Arora & Ms. Neha Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yuvraj Singh on behalf of Mr. Amitabh Vijaywargia HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 21/05/2025 (PER BHUWAN GOYAL J.)

1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(i)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant-State against Judgment and Order dated 31.10.1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No.129/1997 (State of Rajasthan vs. Moolchand & Ors.), vide which accused-respondent [2025:RJ-JP:21547-DB] (2 of 9) [CRLA-412/1999] No. 1 has acquitted for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code and rest of the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. by giving them benefit of doubt.

2. Brief facts of the case in short are that on 13.08.1997 at

2.00 p.m., Laddu Lal son of Harbakhsh (P.W. 9) submitted a verbal report at Police Station Kishanganj, District Baran to the effect that his daughter Santosh Bai was married 10-12 years ago with Moolchand son of Chatra Keer, Resident of Bislai and 9-10 years ago, her “Gona” ceremony was performed. Since then she was living in her in-laws' house. On day before yesterday i.e. Monday, Moti Lal son of Panchu Keer of their village came to him at 3.00 p.m. and stated that his (the complainant's) daughter Santosh had been ablazed to death by her husband Moolchand last Friday. On this, he and Ramnarayan went to Bislai from their village but none of Santosh's in-laws was found at home. On enquiry, it was revealed that Santosh was murdered by her husband Moolchand last Friday at around 3.00 - 4.00 p.m. inside the house and she was ablazed by pouring kerosene on her. He bolted the house and continued to play radio. On seeing fumes outside, after unbolting the doors, Babu Lal Meena saw inside the house and informed the villagers. Later on, her in-laws ablazed the dead body. Moolchand's behaviour with his daughter was not good from the inception. They had been fighting for the last two-four days. It was stated that last year also, he had beaten Santosh severely. Moolchand used to work as “Hali” outside the village and Santosh used to live in the village. Moolchand was suspecting her [2025:RJ-JP:21547-DB] (3 of 9) [CRLA-412/1999] character. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No.126/1997 (Ex.P/13) was registered for the offence under Sections 302, 201 & 498-A of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondents. The trial court framed charge against accused-respondent No. 1 for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and against accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 11 for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 31.10.1998 acquitting accused-respondents for the offences alleged against them. Hence, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State.

3. During pendency of present appeal, accused-respondent Nos.4, 10 & 11, namely, Dhanraj, Chatra @ Chatrubhuj and Pana Bai expired, therefore, appeal qua them was ordered to be abated on 19.03.2025 & 24.05.2023, respectively. Hence, present appeal is being decided qua accused-respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5 to 9 only.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that prosecution produced cogent evidence on record and established that accused- respondent Moolchand murdered Santosh and thereafter, he and other accused-respondents ablazed her dead body for disappearance of the evidence of murder. This fact was corroborated from the testimony of material prosecution witnesses, but despite that the trial court erred in not believing testimony deposed by the prosecution witnesses and evidence available on record in right perspective and wrongly acquitted [2025:RJ-JP:21547-DB] (4 of 9) [CRLA-412/1999] accused-respondents without any cogent reason. He has, therefore, prayed that this appeal may be allowed and accused- respondents may be convicted and sentenced for the offences alleged against them suitably.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused- respondents while supporting the judgment impugned, has submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated material as well as evidence available on record and has not committed any error in passing the judgment and order of acquittal impugned herein. He has, therefore, prayed that present appeal filed by the appellant-State may be dismissed.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through impugned judgment as well as record of the case and have minutely sifted through evidence available on record.

8. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no eye-witness of alleged incident of murder of Santosh and the entire prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence.

9. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence has been very well crystalised in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116. A close analysis of said decision would show that 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. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, [2025:RJ-JP:21547-DB] (5 of 9) [CRLA-412/1999] 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."

10. In the light of these guiding principles, let us examine the evidence in the present case.

11. The prosecution has produced P.W. 1 – Babulal and P.W. 2 – Kallu, who are neighbour and alleged to have seen fumes coming outside the house of the deceased as also Moolchand bolting the door from outside and going with his daughter in his lap and playing the radio at full volume. However, P.W. 1 – Babulal has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he was sitting outside his house under tinshed; he saw fumes coming out of the house of accused Moolchand. He ran towards Moolchand’s house and saw Moolchand was going from his house; he had a girl in his lap and a radio as well; volume of the radio was high. He asked Moolchand as to what was happening in his house and how did the fire spread. Then, Moolchand did not say anything. When Moolchand went from there, he saw that door was bolted from outside. He unbolted the door and went inside Moolchand’s house. When he went inside, he saw Moolchand’s wife was burning. As Moolchand’s wife had completely ablazed; he got scared and immediately went away. In his cross-examination, he stated that Moolchand has two [2025:RJ-JP:21547-DB] (6 of 9) [CRLA-412/1999] brothers, one of whom is Modulal and the other is Kashiram. He admitted that Modulal and Kashiram had beaten him brutally, the case of which was filed in the court at Kota. They had a previous rivalry. His house would be 100 yards away from Moolchand's house. If someone calls from 100 yards away, he could easily hear. He stated that he did not hear any shouting or sound of quarreling in his house, where he was sitting. He also stated that houses of Bajrang Lal, Naingilal, Ratanlal, Chhotulal, Dhanraj, Kishanlal, Chaganlal etc. are situated near Moolchand’s house. After returning, he informed those people that Moolchand's wife was alive. He requested Narayan and Ramhet to extinguish the fire but they said to let her die. Then he went to his house to take meals. He did not go to lodge a report after the incident. He did not send information to the family of Moolchand's wife. He did not see that Moolchand was bolting the door.

12. P.W. 2–Kallu deposed in his examination-in-chief that Moolchand had beaten his wife Santosh before him. He did not know as to why the quarreling took place. Ramcharan and Moolchand both came out of the house before him. He further stated that Moolchand had bolted his house and fume was coming out of the house. In his cross-examination, he stated that Moolchand did not pour kerosene and ablazed his wife before him. He stated that while giving statement to the police, he told that Moolchand had ablazed her by pouring kerosene on her but he did not know why it was not written in Ex.D/1. He informed that Moolchand's wife was being given beating but he did not know why it was not written in Ex.D/1. Thus, from the statements of [2025:RJ-JP:21547-DB] (7 of 9) [CRLA-412/1999] both these witnesses, it reveals that witness Babulal had previous enmity with the accused party and both the witnesses were not eyewitnesses of the incident. Besides, from their conduct, the credibility of their statements regarding being present on the spot and seeing deceased burning in the house and Moolchand leaving the house, was also not proved beyond all reasonable doubt because under normal circumstances if a person sees burning another person, he/she not only tries to extinguish the fire and takes him/her to the hospital but also informs the family members of the injured and the police about the incident but in the case in hand, both these witnesses neither tried to save the deceased when she was burning nor took her to the hospital and nor informed the police. Rather, P.W. 1 - Babulal admitted that after seeing the incident, he went to home to take meals and did not inform the police.

13. Further, as per prosecution story, Motilal (P.W. 11) informed complainant Laddu Lal (P.W. 9) that his daughter Santosh was ablazed to death by her husband Moolchand last Friday. However, P.W. 11 – Motilal not supported the prosecution story and declared hostile. He stated in his statement that he had only informed complainant Laddu Lal about death of the deceased and did not inform as to how she died. He also stated that he did not hear how she died. In this context, it is also worth mentioning here that Laddu Lal (P.W. 9) stated in his statement that he went to Bislai with Ramnarain on Tuesday after getting information about the incident from Motilal on Monday, but he lodged the report of the incident on Friday i.e. five days after the incident. The incident [2025:RJ-JP:21547-DB] (8 of 9) [CRLA-412/1999] in the present case took place on 08.08.1997, whereas, F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant as late as on 13.08.1997. No reason for the said delay was furnished by the prosecution. It is also pertinent to note here that it was mentioned by P.W. 9 – Laddu Lal in the FIR that Moolchand's behaviour with his daughter was not cordial. They had been quarreling for more than two-four days. Last year also, he had beaten Santosh brutally, whereas, no such report or complaint in this regard was submitted to the police. Rather, P.W. 9 – Laddu Lal stated in his examination-in-chief that if any quarrel had taken place between the husband and wife, he (accused) would not have taken his daughter with him. He did not know why Moolchand murdered his daughter. Thus, the testimony deposed by these witnesses does not appear to be worth credence. Other independent prosecution witnesses viz. P.W. 3 – Chhotulal, P.W. 4 – Udalal and P.W. 8 – Ram Janki also did not support the prosecution story and declared hostile.

14. So far as recovery of kerosene cane at the instance of accused-respondent No.1 is concerned, a perusal of the record would reveal that burnt iron cane was recovered by the police at the instance of accused Moolchand vide Ex.P/3, whereas, P.W. 1 – Babulal admitted in his examination-in-chief that one cane was lying hear the legs of wife of Moolchand. It is pertinent to note here that there is no FSL Report on record to establish that there was kerosene in the recovered cane. Thus, from the above evidence available on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove recovery of iron cane at the instance of accused-respondent No. 1 so also prosecution story against accused-respondents [2025:RJ-JP:21547-DB] (9 of 9) [CRLA-412/1999] beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the judgment impugned passed by the trial court.

16. Accordingly, present criminal appeal is dismissed. The Judgment dated 31.10.1998 passed by the trial court is affirmed.

17. The record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J INDER/12