LALARAM vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
[2026:RJ-JD:50059]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1783/2024
CNR: RJHC010860762024 | URN: CRLAS / 4816U / 2024
1. Lalaram S/o Narayanlal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Badi,
Police Station Siriyari, Pali, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan.
2. Trilokram S/o Narayanlal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Badi,
Police Station Siriyari, Pali, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan.
3. Mohanlal S/o Jeetaram, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Badi,
Police Station Siriyari, Pali, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan.
4. Dinesh S/o Ghisaram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Badi,
Police Station Siriyari, Pali, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Nemaram S/o Bhanwar Lal, R/o Badi, Police Station
Siriyari, Pali, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshwardhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 29/09/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 29/09/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/10/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been preferred against the order dated
04.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 12:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)
(2 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:50059] [CRLAS-1783/2024]
(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali, in Sessions Case No.
98/2015, whereby the learned trial Court ordered framing of
charges against the appellants Lalaram, Tilokram and Mohanlal for
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342/34, 323/34, 354
and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 3(1)(x),
3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and against Dinesh Gurjar
for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 342/120-B,
323/120-B, 354/120-B and 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
along with Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act, in connection with FIR No. 85/2015 registered at Police
Station Siriyari, District Pali.
2. The concise facts of the case are that on 04.05.2015,
respondent No. 2 lodged a report alleging that on 02.05.2015 at
about 09:00 P.M., the accused persons abused his son Raju with
reference to their caste, dragged him into the house of Mohan
Gurjar and assaulted him with fists, kicks and lathis. When the
complainant’s wife Pushpa and younger son Rinku intervened,
they were also manhandled and Pushpa’s clothes were torn. It was
further alleged that the accused persons threw Raju onto the road,
and upon the complainant’s return the following morning, Raju
was taken to a local practitioner who declared him dead. The
complainant attributed the delay in lodging the report to the fear
of the dominant Gurjar community. After investigation, a charge-
sheet was filed against Lalaram, Trilok Ram and Mohanlal, followed
by a supplementary charge-sheet against Dinesh. The charges
earlier framed were set aside in revision vide order dated
08.02.2017, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 12:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)
(3 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:50059] [CRLAS-1783/2024]
after taking into account the FSL report. Upon rehearing, the
learned trial Court, vide order dated 04.10.2024, again framed
charges against the appellants, which order has been assailed in
the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned
trial Court has erred in framing charges under Section 302 IPC
without properly appreciating the material available on record,
particularly the post-mortem report and the FSL report. It is
contended that the cause of death of deceased Raju remained
uncertain as per the post-mortem report, while the FSL
examination ruled out poisoning and detected ethyl alcohol in the
viscera. It is further argued that the deceased had sustained only
four superficial injuries, none of which was shown to be sufficient
to cause death, and thus, the material on record does not prima
facie establish a nexus between the alleged assault and the death
of the deceased so as to warrant framing of charge under Section
302 IPC.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and
learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the submissions advanced on
behalf of the appellants and vehemently resisted the prayer for
setting aside the impugned order.
5. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties
and perused the material available on record.
6. After perusing the material available on record, the foremost
question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether, in
the absence of a definite and conclusive opinion regarding the
cause of death of the deceased, the petitioner can be subjected to
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 12:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)
(4 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:50059] [CRLAS-1783/2024]
trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The
distinction between a death simpliciter and a homicidal death
assumes considerable significance in a prosecution alleging the
commission of murder. For attracting the provisions of Section 302
IPC, the prosecution must, at the threshold, lay a foundational
basis to establish that the death in question was homicidal in
nature and that the same was attributable to the culpable act of
the accused.
7. Ordinarily, death may be classified as natural, accidental,
suicidal or homicidal. Where the prosecution seeks to prosecute an
accused for the offence of murder, it is incumbent upon the
prosecution to establish, through legally admissible and reliable
material, that the death was homicidal and that the culpable act of
the accused bears the requisite nexus with such death. The mere
fact that a person has died, coupled with an allegation of assault,
would not, by itself, be sufficient to sustain a prosecution for
murder unless the material on record prima facie establishes the
essential ingredients of the alleged offence.
8. In the present case, the cause of death was initially kept
uncertain, and the final opinion was deferred pending forensic
examination of the viscera. The viscera report has since been
received, and no poisonous substance has been detected therein.
Thus, the forensic examination has not furnished any material
indicating death on account of poisoning. However, the absence of
poison, by itself, does not establish that the death was homicidal;
nor does it conclusively determine the precise cause of death. The
question, therefore, has to be examined in the light of the entire
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 12:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)
(5 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:50059] [CRLAS-1783/2024]
medical evidence available on record, particularly the nature of
the injuries noticed upon the body of the deceased and the
opinion expressed by the medical expert regarding their causal
connection with the death.
9 . Upon a careful consideration of the allegations and the
medical evidence, it emerges that the injuries noticed upon the
deceased comprise three abrasions and one bruise. The nature
and extent of these injuries, as reflected in the medical record, do
not prima facie indicate injuries of such gravity as would, in the
ordinary course of events, be sufficient to establish that the death
was the direct consequence of the alleged assault. Such superficial
injuries may occur even during ordinary physical activity or in the
course of routine movements, and their mere presence cannot,
without more, be elevated to proof of homicidal causation.
10. More importantly, the opinion of the medical expert assumes
considerable significance in this regard. When the cause of death
and the causal relationship between the injuries and the death
constitute the very foundation of a charge of murder, the medical
opinion cannot be brushed aside or substituted by a mere
inference founded upon the allegations of the prosecution. The
medical expert, upon examining the nature of the injuries, has not
attributed the cause of death to the injuries in question. In such
circumstances, the Court cannot, merely on the strength of a
general allegation that the deceased was beaten or assaulted,
presume that the alleged assault resulted in the death of the
deceased.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 12:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)
(6 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:50059] [CRLAS-1783/2024]
11. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that
suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of
legally sustainable material. The gravity of the consequence,
namely, the death of a person, cannot by itself supply the missing
link between the alleged act of the accused and the death. For
sustaining a prosecution under Section 302 IPC, the material on
record must disclose, at least prima facie, that the death was the
consequence of a culpable act attributable to the accused and that
the essential ingredients of the offence alleged are made out.
Where the foundational link between the alleged act and the death
is conspicuously absent, the charge of murder cannot be
permitted to rest upon conjecture or a mere assertion of assault.
12. It is true that, at the stage of framing of charge, the
evidence is not to be weighed as though the Court were
conducting a trial. Nevertheless, the power to frame a charge
must be exercised upon a judicial consideration of the material
collected during investigation. In the present case, the nature of
the injuries, the absence of any poisonous substance in the
viscera report and, above all, the medical opinion not attributing
the cause of death to the injuries, when considered cumulatively,
do not prima facie furnish a sufficient basis for proceeding against
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
13. This Court is conscious of the fact that the allegations may
disclose the commission of other offences, particularly in relation
to the alleged abuse or assault, and the same are required to be
examined independently on the basis of the material available on
record. The failure of the prosecution to establish the foundational
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 12:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)
(7 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:50059] [CRLAS-1783/2024]
ingredients necessary for proceeding under Section 302 IPC would
not, by itself, efface the allegations constituting other offences,
nor would it render the prosecution case, in its entirety,
unsustainable. This Court is of the view that the material on
record does not disclose the requisite prima facie nexus between
the alleged culpable act of the petitioner and the death of the
deceased so as to justify the framing of a charge for murder.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition is
partly allowed. The order impugned, to the extent it directs
framing of charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC, is hereby quashed and set aside.
The petitioner stands discharged from the aforesaid offence.
15. However, the challenge to the impugned order, insofar as it
pertains to the remaining offences, does not merit acceptance and
is, accordingly, rejected. Consequently, the impugned order, to
that extent, warrants no interference and is hereby maintained.
The learned trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order on charge,
duly excluding the charge under Section 302 IPC, in respect of
which the petitioners have been discharged, and thereafter
proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law.
16. The instant petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
17. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_20 (1763)
S/189
Mamta Tak
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 12:59:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)