Jaipur, September 1, 2025 – The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has set aside the conviction and life sentence of a man accused of abducting and murdering a woman in Sawai Madhopur, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
A Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu allowed the appeal filed by Ramavtar S/o Panna @ Kalyan, who had been convicted by the Sessions Court, Sawai Madhopur, under Sections 364, 394, and 302 IPC.
The trial court had imposed ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for the charges of abduction and robbery, and life imprisonment for murder. However, after scrutinising the evidence, the High Court found multiple gaps in the prosecution’s case.
Prosecution’s Allegations
According to the FIR lodged on May 10, 2014, the complainant’s mother had left for work on May 8, 2014, in the company of the appellant but never returned. She was last seen wearing silver anklets weighing about 750 grams.
During investigation, skeletal remains were recovered on June 17, 2014, on the basis of the appellant’s disclosure. DNA analysis later confirmed the remains belonged to the deceased. Police also recovered a knife, silver anklets and other articles allegedly linked to the crime.
High Court’s Findings
Despite these recoveries, the Bench found the evidence insufficient to sustain conviction:
-
Cause of Death Unproved: The post-mortem, conducted only on bones, could not determine the cause of death.
-
Knife Recovery Doubtful: The knife was found in an open area, bore no blood stains, and had no forensic link to the deceased.
-
Anklets Identification Flawed: The anklets were common in the market, and the complainant admitted seeing them in the police station before test identification.
-
Missing Forensic Link: Clothes allegedly stained with blood were never sent for FSL examination.
-
Weak Last Seen Evidence: The deceased was last seen with the accused on May 8, 2014, but her remains surfaced 35 days later, leaving a significant gap without corroboration.
The court observed that mere recovery of the body on an accused’s disclosure cannot by itself prove guilt unless supported by a complete chain of incriminating circumstances.
Acquittal Ordered
Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Division Bench acquitted the appellant of all charges.
The court directed his immediate release if not required in any other case, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 and a surety for six months, ensuring his presence in case of an appeal before the Supreme Court.
