The Supreme Court of India on Friday, September 26, 2025, dismissed appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan, thereby upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to acquit three individuals—Bhanwar Singh, Hemlata, and Narpat Choudhary—in a 2006 murder case. A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi affirmed the acquittal, concluding that the prosecution’s case was built on a “conjectural story” and that the evidence presented was insufficient, inadmissible, and unreliable.
The case pertains to the murder of Shri Suresh Sharma in Jodhpur. The respondents had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jodhpur, for offences including murder (Section 302 IPC), criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC), and destruction of evidence (Section 201 IPC), and were sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the Rajasthan High Court later acquitted them, citing “insufficiency of evidence and patent infirmities in the prosecution case.”
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case began on January 23, 2006, when Navneet Sharma (PW-15), the son of the deceased, filed a missing person report for his father, Shri Suresh Sharma. The report mentioned ongoing land disputes between his father and other individuals.
Later that same day, a dead body was discovered between the villages of Jajiwal Gahlotan and Jajiwal Bhatiyan, which Navneet Sharma identified as his father. The deceased’s hands were tied with an iron wire, his legs were fastened with a cloth, and his face appeared to have been crushed to efface his identity. An FIR was registered at Police Station Dangiyawas for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
A postmortem examination conducted by a medical board revealed approximately 20 injuries on the body and concluded that the cause of death was “antemortem strangulation.” Following an investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against Bhanwar Singh, Hemlata, and Narpat Choudhary.
Trial Court Conviction and Prosecution’s Arguments
The trial court convicted the accused based on a chain of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution argued that the accused had conspired to murder Shri Suresh Sharma due to distinct motives.
For respondents Hemlata and her husband Narpat Choudhary, the motive was alleged to be their perturbation over the deceased’s frequent visits to their house. For respondent Bhanwar Singh, the motive was attributed to a land dispute with one Sayri Devi (PW-12), in which the deceased had sided with her and allegedly threatened Bhanwar Singh.
The prosecution claimed that the accused hired professional killers from Uttar Pradesh, lured the deceased to Hemlata’s residence on the evening of January 22, 2006, and strangled him to death. They then allegedly transported the body in a Maruti van belonging to Narpat Choudhary and abandoned it on a roadside.
The key evidence relied upon by the trial court included:
- Motive: Based on the land dispute and the deceased’s visits to Hemlata’s house.
- Last Seen Theory: Testimony from witnesses Hukum Singh (PW-8) and Dharmender Singh (PW-20), who claimed to have seen the deceased parking his scooter near Hemlata’s house on the evening of his disappearance.
- Recoveries: A blood-stained stole (chunni) recovered from Hemlata’s house, and a Maruti van with alleged blood stains.
- Conspiracy: Call detail records allegedly showing conversations between the accused and evidence of hired killers staying in hotels arranged by Narpat Choudhary.
High Court’s Acquittal and Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, conducted a “threadbare examination” of the evidence and found the High Court’s reasoning for acquittal to be sound and justified. The court systematically dismantled each piece of evidence presented by the prosecution.
On the ‘Last Seen’ Theory: The testimony of witnesses Hukum Singh (PW-8) and Dharmender Singh (PW-20) was deemed unreliable. The court noted the “highly suspicious” conduct of Hukum Singh, who signed the inquest memo on January 23, 2006, but failed to disclose the crucial fact of seeing the deceased near Hemlata’s house until February 28, 2006, more than a month later. The Supreme Court stated it was in “firm opinion that the High Court was perfectly justified in discarding the testimony of Hukum Singh (PW-8) and Dharmender Singh (PW-20), finding their conduct to be doubtful.”
On Recoveries: The court found the recoveries to be insignificant. The blood-stained chunni, recovered five days after the incident, could not be linked to the crime because the Forensic Science Laboratory did not determine the blood group. The court observed, “Unless the chunni was shown to be having the same blood group as that of the deceased-Shri Suresh, the recovery thereof even with blood stains of human origin would be inconsequential.” The Court gave its “full imprimatur to the conclusion drawn by the High Court… that the recovery of chunni was concocted and planted.” Similarly, blood stains in the recovered Maruti van could not be matched through serological examination, rendering that evidence inconsequential.
On Call Detail Records and Conspiracy: The court found the call detail records to be inadmissible. The prosecution failed to produce a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is mandatory for proving electronic records. Furthermore, the details were presented in a “handwritten note,” and its author was never examined in court. The court held that this would lead to an “inescapable conclusion that the call details were not proved as per law.” The evidence related to hotel registers also failed to connect Narpat Choudhary to any alleged hired killers.
On Motive: The theories of motive were found to be unsubstantiated. The deceased’s son and wife testified to having good relations with Hemlata. The testimony of Sayri Devi (PW-12) regarding the threat from Bhanwar Singh was found to be riddled with “gross exaggerations and improvements” from her initial police statement and was rightly disbelieved by the High Court. The Supreme Court observed, “mere threat to inflict harm may constitute an incriminating circumstance but in isolation, the said circumstance would fall woefully short of proof of conspiracy to commit murder.”
The Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held that there was “no evidence worth the name on the record of the case so as to connect respondents-Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary with the murder of the deceased-Shri Suresh.”
The bench reiterated the principles governing an appeal against acquittal, citing Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, stating that interference is only warranted if the judgment suffers from “patent perversity” or is based on a “misreading/omission to consider material evidence.”
Finding no such grounds, the court ruled, “we are of the firm opinion that the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the accused-respondents is based on apropos appreciation and evaluation of evidence and hence, does not warrant inference in this appeal against acquittal.” The appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan were accordingly dismissed.
