Legal Review and Analysis of State of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh etc 2025 INSC 1166

1. Heading of the Judgment

State of Rajasthan vs. Bhanwar Singh etc.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1166, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1954-1956 of 2013
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Judgment: September 26, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

This judgment primarily deals with the following legal provisions:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Section 302: Punishment for Murder.
  Section 120-B: Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy.
  Section 143: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
  Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen the offender.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  Section 374(2): Appeal from convictions by a Sessions Judge.

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  Section 27: How much of information received from accused may be proved.
  Section 65-B: Admissibility of electronic records.

3. Basic Judgment Details

This appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan against the common judgment dated December 14, 2011, passed by the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court had acquitted the respondents (Bhanwar Singh, Hemlata, and Narpat Choudhary) who had been convicted by the Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur) for the murder of one Shri Suresh Sharma. The Trial Court had sentenced them to life imprisonment under Sections 302/120-B IPC, among other offences. The State, aggrieved by the acquittal, appealed to the Supreme Court.

4. Core Principle and In-Depth Analysis of the Judgment

The Central Legal Issue

The core question before the Supreme Court was: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction ordered by the Trial Court and acquitting the accused-respondents, and if the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable, and admissible evidence.

The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal by the High Court. The Court's reasoning is a meticulous re-appreciation of the evidence, highlighting fatal flaws in the prosecution's case.

A. The Governing Principle in Appeals Against Acquittal

The Court began by reiterating the well-settled principle governing appellate interference with an order of acquittal, as stated in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka. An appellate court can reverse an acquittal only if:

1. The judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity.

2. It is based on a misreading or omission to consider material evidence.

3. No two reasonable views are possible, and the only possible view is one consistent with the guilt of the accused.

The Supreme Court emphasized that unless these stringent conditions are met, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal.

B. Scrutiny of the Prosecution's Key Circumstantial Evidence

The case against the accused was entirely circumstantial. The Supreme Court analyzed each link in the chain of circumstances and found them to be weak, unreliable, or improperly proved.

i. The Theory of Motive:

• Prosecution's Claim: The Trial Court attributed two motives: (a) Hemlata and her husband Narpat Choudhary were perturbed by the deceased's frequent visits to their house, and (b) Bhanwar Singh had a land dispute with Sayri Devi (PW-12), and the deceased, who was helping her, had threatened him.

• Supreme Court's Finding: The Court found the motive theory to be conjectural.
  The complainant (PW-15, son of the deceased) and the deceased's wife (PW-24) stated that the deceased had cordial, professional client-lawyer relations with Hemlata and Narpat, contradicting the prosecution's claim of a nefarious motive.
  The testimony of Sayri Devi (PW-12) regarding Bhanwar Singh's threat was found to be full of "gross exaggerations and improvements" from her previous police statement. The Court held that a mere threat, in isolation, is insufficient to prove a conspiracy to commit murder.

ii. The 'Last Seen' Theory:

• Prosecution's Claim: Witnesses Hukum Singh (PW-8) and Dharmender Singh (PW-20) claimed they saw the deceased parking his scooter near Hemlata's house on the evening of the murder.

• Supreme Court's Finding: The Court upheld the High Court's decision to discard this evidence due to the witnesses' "unnatural conduct."
  Both witnesses remained silent for over a month (PW-8 for 37 days, PW-20 for 20-25 days) before disclosing this critical information to the police.
  The Court found it unbelievable that a person of ordinary prudence, who had seen the deceased just before his death and was also present at the inquest, would not immediately report such a vital fact. The delay rendered their testimony highly suspicious and unreliable.

iii. The Evidence of Recoveries:

• Recovery of Blood-Stained Chunni (Stole): A chunni was recovered from Hemlata's house based on her disclosure. The Supreme Court found this recovery "insignificant" because:
  The Forensic Science Laboratory did not determine the blood group on the chunni. Without matching it to the deceased's blood group, its value as evidence was nil.
  The house was accessible to others for five days after the incident, making the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act irrelevant.

• Recovery of Maruti Van: The prosecution alleged the deceased's body was transported in a van belonging to Narpat Choudhary. The Court noted that no blood grouping was possible from the stains found, and no witness saw the body being transported in the van.

• Hotel Registers and Call Detail Records (CDRs): The prosecution claimed Narpat Choudhary arranged hotel stays for hired killers and conspired with Bhanwar Singh via phone.
  Hotel Registers: No evidence linked the entries to Narpat Choudhary or proved he facilitated anyone's stay.
  Call Detail Records (CDRs): This evidence was held to be inadmissible as the prosecution failed to produce the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, the numbers were presented via a handwritten note, whose scribe was not examined. This was a fatal legal flaw.

C. Conclusion on the Chain of Circumstances

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. Each piece of evidence was either unreliable, inadmissible, or did not conclusively connect the accused to the crime. The view taken by the High Court was found to be a reasonable one based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. Therefore, there was no "patent perversity" warranting interference by the Supreme Court.

5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan. It upheld the common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated December 14, 2011, which had acquitted the respondents (Bhanwar Singh, Hemlata, and Narpat Choudhary) of all charges.

Specific Directions:

• The acquittal of the respondents was confirmed.

• The judgment of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the respondents was set aside.

• All pending applications were disposed of.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In State of Rajasthan vs. Bhanwar Singh etc., the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the accused. Which of the following was a primary reason for discarding the testimony of witnesses Hukum Singh (PW-8) and Dharmender Singh (PW-20) who supported the 'last seen' theory?

a) They were related to the accused.
b) They were declared hostile by the prosecution.
c) They disclosed the critical information to the police after an unexplained delay of over a month.
d) Their statements were not recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.

Answer: c) They disclosed the critical information to the police after an unexplained delay of over a month.

Question 2: The prosecution's case in the aforementioned judgment relied heavily on circumstantial evidence. Why did the Supreme Court find the call detail records (CDRs) inadmissible as evidence?

a) The calls were made from public telephones.
b) The accused denied owning the mobile numbers.
c) The prosecution failed to produce the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
d) The call records were not obtained with proper permission from a magistrate.

Answer: c) The prosecution failed to produce the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.