Friday, 6 November 2026
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
Criminal Law

Tower Location at a Public Place Is Not Last Seen: Rajasthan High Court Acquits Three of Hanumangarh Murder

Mukesh, Rajkumar @ Raju and Sandeep Kumar @ Ronaldo v. State of Rajasthan 2026:RJ-JD:54691-DB Decided 4 November 2026

Published: · NyayVidhan · 2 min read

In Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan (2026:RJ-JD:54691-DB), the Rajasthan High Court, hearing the appeal finally at the stage of suspension of sentence, acquitted three men sentenced to life for a 2018 murder at a hotel in Hanumangarh district. With the eyewitnesses not supporting the prosecution, the only circumstance left was that their phones used a tower covering the scene, and that, at a public place, could not prove last seen (paras 1, 15, 19-21).

Tower Location at a Public Place Is Not Last Seen: Rajasthan High Court Acquits Three of Hanumangarh Murder

Judgment Intelligence

Conviction Set Aside
Mukesh, Rajkumar @ Raju and Sandeep Kumar @ Ronaldo v. State of Rajasthan
2026:RJ-JD:54691-DB
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 79/2026 with D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1541/2026
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
4 November 2026
Bench
Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Ashutosh Kumar
Relevant Acts & Sections
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 324, 341 read with Section 34; Arms Act, 1959 — Section 4/25
Final Outcome

The appeal was allowed and the trial court's judgment of 26 February 2026 was quashed. All three appellants were acquitted of the charged offences and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and any fine recovered was to be refunded (para 21).

Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — judgment dated 4 November 2026

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. Tower-location evidence shows only that calls passed through a tower covering an area, not the exact location of the phone (para 19).
  2. At a public place, presence within tower range is consistent with innocent movement and does not prove last seen (para 19).
  3. A test identification parade is not substantive evidence when the witnesses do not identify the accused in court (para 15).
  4. A recovered knife with no incriminating material on it adds nothing to the prosecution case (para 17).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The prosecution case was that on 19 September 2018, at about 3:30 a.m., a quarrel at a hotel in Suratpura led to the deceased being stabbed and a second man injured, and that the appellants, strangers to both, fled (para 3). An injured eyewitness and another witness identified them at a test identification parade (para 3). Phones were recovered from all three, and a knife on the third appellant's disclosure, though no blood was found on it (para 4). On 26 February 2026 the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra convicted them under Sections 341, 302/34 and 324/34 IPC, and the third appellant also under the Arms Act, imposing life imprisonment for murder (paras 2, 8).

Court's Findings

The Bench took up the appeal itself at the parties' request (para 1). Both eyewitnesses, the injured man described as the best witness, did not support the appellants' role in court, and their earlier identification at the parade was held not to be substantive evidence, so the direct evidence failed (para 15). The knife recovered from the third appellant carried no incriminating material and had no significance (para 17). The Bench noted that the appellants had not explained how they came to hold phones and SIM cards not in their names (para 18). On the decisive question, the Nodal Officers could prove only that calls were made through a tower whose area included the scene, not that the phones were at the scene itself; the scene was a public place where the appellants might have been moving innocently, so last seen was not proved and this sole circumstance could not show their involvement (paras 19-20).

Legal Principle

Evidence that an accused person's mobile phone used a tower whose coverage includes the scene of a crime does not by itself place him at the scene, particularly at a public place, and cannot prove the circumstance of last seen or sustain a conviction once the eyewitnesses do not support the prosecution (paras 19-20).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For the defence, this ruling shows how far tower-location evidence can carry a prosecution once the eyewitnesses do not support it: proof that phones connected through a tower whose area covers the scene does not place the accused at the scene, especially when the scene is a public place (para 19). A previous identification parade is not substantive evidence if the witnesses do not identify the accused in court (para 15), and a recovered weapon with no incriminating material on it adds little (para 17). Compare Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan on what counts as 'last seen', and Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan on call records as proof.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Statutory Provisions: IPC Arms Act Section 302 (IPC) Section 34 (IPC) Section 341 (IPC)
Topics: Recovery Evidence Last Seen Theory Hostile Witness Test Identification Parade Call Detail Records

Related Judgments

Unproved Call Records, Belated Last-Seen Witnesses and a Bare Threat: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Acquittals
Supreme Court of India

Unproved Call Records, Belated Last-Seen Witnesses and a Bare Threat: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Acquittals

26 September 2025
Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt