Citation: Smt. Savitri v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Ramsharan alias Teetu), D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 123/2026, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (Justices Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Bhuwan Goyal), decided on 01.10.2026 | 2026:RJ-JP:39934-DB
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of murdering his neighbour, after the victim’s widow appealed, holding that the prosecution’s case was entirely circumstantial and its chain of evidence was broken.
An appeal court will not overturn an acquittal merely because another view is possible. It can interfere only if the trial court’s view is perverse or ignores material evidence, and if the only possible conclusion from the evidence is that guilt is proved. In a circumstantial evidence case, each link in the chain must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and together must point only to the accused’s guilt. Statements first made much later, which were not in the FIR or the earliest police statements, are likely to be treated as afterthoughts. Recovery of a weapon from an open place, with no proof that the blood on it was human or the victim’s, and electronic location data without a Section 65B certificate, do not complete the chain.
According to the widow, her husband, Amar Singh, was found unconscious and bleeding from a head injury in the early hours of 13 August 2022 while sleeping in the courtyard outside their house in Barakhur, Bharatpur. He was taken to hospital, referred to Jaipur and kept on a ventilator, and died on 12 September 2022. She suspected the accused, Ramsharan alias Teetu, because he had threatened her husband earlier. The police charged Ramsharan under Section 302 IPC and other sections, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, acquitted him on 9 February 2026, giving him the benefit of doubt. The widow appealed under Section 413 BNSS. Justices Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Bhuwan Goyal went through the evidence and agreed with the trial court. The three supposed eyewitnesses turned hostile and said that they had not seen any incident. The widow and her two daughters did not see the assault either, and one daughter was on duty in Delhi and the other was at her in-laws’ house. Three other witnesses claimed they saw the accused quarrelling with the victim at 8-9 pm that day, but the court found this unreliable because it was missing from the FIR, which was lodged four days later, and from the earlier police statements of the widow and her daughters. It only appeared about a month and a half later, which looked like an afterthought. One of these witnesses was also on duty at a police station elsewhere at the time. The brick piece said to be the weapon was recovered from an open roadside ten days later, the recovery memo did not mention blood, and nothing showed that any blood on it was human or the victim’s, and it was produced in court unsealed. The accused’s mobile location near the spot was not proved, as there was no Section 65B certificate. The alleged motive, linked to the accused’s sister who had a dispute with her in-laws, also failed because she turned hostile. Applying the Supreme Court’s rules on appeals against acquittal, the court held that the trial court’s view was a possible one and dismissed the appeal.