Satish Kumar Dubey (Jatav) vs State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 6641 MP

                                     1

                      High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                             Bench Gwalior

               DB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice G.S.Ahluwalia
                                  &
               Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal

                    Criminal Appeal No.240 of 2010

                       Satish Kumar Dubey (Jatav)
                                  Vs.
                        State of Madhya Pradesh

                ==============================
Shri CP Singh, Counsel for Appellant, along with Shri Sunil Soni,
Counsel for appellant through Video Conferencing.
Shri BPS Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri RVS Ghuraiya, Counsel for the Complainant.
             =================================
Reserved on              27/09/2021
Whether approved for reporting:.......
            ==================================
                             JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 22/10/2021)

Per Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J:-

The present Criminal Appeal u/S.374 of CrPC has been preferred by

appellant Satish Kumar Dubey (Jatav), challenging the judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 24/12/2009 passed by Special Judge

(MPDVPK), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No.83/2006, by which he

has been convicted u/S. 302/34 IPC r/w Section 13 of MPDVPK Act and

sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in

default thereof, he has been further directed to undergo six months'

rigorous imprisonment.

(2) Prosecution case, in brief, is that the father of the deceased, Nathu

Singh (PW6) on 11/03/2006 submitted a written application before the

Police Station Morar, Gwalior stating therein that he is residing in Arya

Nagar, Morar in his own house. His son Kallu alias Trilok Singh

(deceased), aged about 9 years, is studying in SRK School, Arya Nagar,

Morar. At about 12:00 noon, his son Kallu came to house and at about

01:30 pm, he was playing outside the house and after sometime, when he

was not seen, he searched here and there and enquired about his son from

the neighbours as well as from other persons but he could not trace him.

His son was wearing a red colour T-shirt and cream colour pant. On the

basis of his written report Ex.P12, Gum Inshan No.18/2006 was recorded

at the Police Station and the matter, thereafter, was enquired by Assistant

Sub-Inspector NR Narwariya (PW12).

(3) During enquiry, Assistant Sub-Inspector Narwariya (PW12)

recorded the statements of Nathu Singh (father of deceased), witnesses

Guddu Ghuraiya and Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar. Apart from the above, on the

next day, during enquiry, Nathu Singh stated before the police that

appellant accused Satish used to do watchman in the house of one Jagdish

Soni and used to come to his house also. He had taken loan of Rs.300/-

from him. His friends, Pramod, Mukesh and Suresh also used to come to

his house. Today, appellant-accused Satish and his friends Pramod,

Mukesh and Suresh came and took his son Kallu with them. Witness

Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar stated that at about 01:00 to 02:00 pm, while he

was coming from Tyagi Nagar to Baradari, near lane of Arya Nagar, SRK

School, Morar, he saw that Kallu alias Trilok Singh (deceased) is going

somewhere with appellant-accused Satish and other co-accused Pramod

and Mukesh. All the persons used to come to the house of Nathu Singh and

appellant-accused Satish was a watchman in the house of Jagdish Soni,

that's why he knows them and, therefore, he did not have any doubt about

it. Witness Guddu Ghuraiya stated the same version as narrated by witness

Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar. On the basis of statements of these witnesses, ASI

Narwariya submitted a written report before the then SHO, Morar that

appellant-accused Satish along with co-accused Pramod, Mukesh and

Suresh has kidnapped deceased Trilok alias Kallu. On 12/03/2006 at about

07:00 pm, appellant-accused Satish along with three others was arrested

vide arrest memo Ex.P1 to P4 and taken into police custody and their

statements u/S.27 of Evidence Act were recorded on 12/03/2006 in the

next morning vide memorandum Ex.P5 to Ex.P8. At their behest, from

Simariya Forest, Ghatigaon, the dead body of deceased Kallu alias Trilok

was recovered vide Ex.P9. Panchnama of dead body of deceased was

prepared vide Ex.P11. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P16. Thereafter,

dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report

Ex.P17, death of deceased was due to asphyxia and manual strangulation

of neck and duration of death was within 6-24 hours and homicidal in

nature.

(4) On the basis of the letter submitted by ASI Narwariya on 12/03/2006

at about 01:30, FIR bearing Crime No.188/2006 (Ex.P19) was registered at

Police Station Morar for offence u/S 365/34 of IPC and 11/13 of

MPDVPK Act against appellant-accused Satish and three others. After

registering offence, investigation was carried out and statements of

witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was

filed against accused persons for offence u/Ss.302, 364-A, 34 IPC and

11/13 of MPDVPK Act on 03/04/2006 and thereafter, case was committed

to the Court of Session. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried and the prosecution proceeded to examine its witnesses.

In all, 15 witnesses were examined by Prosecution in its support.

Statements of accused u/S. 313 of CrPC were recorded and in order to lead

defence evidence, accused-appellant Satish examined himself as DW1 and

Dr.A.K. Singh as DW2.

(5) The trial Court after considering the prosecution evidence,

pronounced its judgment on 24/12/2009, whereby the accused persons

were acquitted of charge u/S. 364-A/34 of IPC and accused- appellant

Satish including co-accused Mukesh and Pramod were found guilty for

commission of offence u/S.302/34 IPC r/w Sec.13 of MPDVPK Act and

accordingly, appellant-accused Satish has been convicted and sentenced, as

described in para 1 of this judgment.

(6) The grounds for appeal are that the trial Court committed an error in

relying upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses Jagdish (PW1),

Chhiddaram (PW2), Pulandar (PW3), Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar (PW4)

Navalsingh Baghel (PW9), and Virendra Singh (PW10). Even though there

are various contradictions and omissions in their deposition. In their

accused statements, appellant- accused Satish has stated that he has been

falsely implicated. The prosecution evidence is not reliable and the trial

Court has wrongly recorded the judgment of conviction and sentence

against appellant. The appellant has been acquitted of charge by the trial

Court under Section 364/34 of IPC as there was no case made out against

him. Therefore, the appellant also deserves to be acquitted of charge

u/S.302/34 IPC r/w Sec.13 of MPDVPK Act and the impugned judgment

of conviction and sentence passed against him, deserves to be set aside.

(7) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State as well as Counsel

for complainant supported the impugned judgment of conviction and

sentence and submitted that there being no infirmity in the impugned

judgment of conviction and sentence and the findings arrived at by the

Trial Court do not require any inference by this Court. Hence, prayed for

dismissal of this appeal.

(8) We have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the

materials available on record and also gone through the evidence of

following prosecution witnesses:-

(8.1) Nathu Singh (PW6)

The father of the deceased Nathu Singh (PW6), in his evidence,

stated that at about 12:00 noon, his son Kallu (deceased) came from the

school and after changing his clothes, he went outside for playing. All of a

sudden, at about 01:00-01:30 pm, his son was found missing. Thereafter,

he searched here and there, but could not find him. At about 06:00 to 07:00

in the evening, he gave a written application about missing of his son at

Police Station Gole Ka Mandir and thereafter, he started searching his son,

but could not trace him. Again, he went to Police Station and at there, he

got an information that his son has been traced and was found with

accused Pramod, Suresh, Satish and Mukesh. Thereafter, upto late night,

he sat at police station. Afterwards, police constable told him to go to

home and as and when they will get information about his son, they will

call him. This witness stated that his son was wearing red colour T-shirt

and cream colour pant. On the date of incident, all the accused persons had

come to his house and drunk water and after sometime, they had gone

away. Next day morning, in between 07:00 to 08:00, police came to his

house and took him in police vehicle to police station where all the four

accused persons were sitting. This witness also stated that on 11/03/2006,

he had also submitted an application before SHO, Police Station Morar

regarding missing of his son vide Ex.P12. In his presence, police had

prepared spot map Ex.P13 and informed him vide Safina Form Ex.P10. In

his presence, Panchnama of the dead body of deceased was prepared vide

Ex.P11. This witness further stated that the postmortem of deceased was

conducted and after postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed

over to him vide Ex.14.

During cross-examination, this witness stated that his shop and

house are the same. On 11/03/2006 he used to available in his shop from

08:00 am to 06:00 pm. He went to search his son and enquired from

neighbours Ankur, Yogendra, Rahul and other children about his son and

thereafter, he also went to Prithvi Nagar, Sirol. On 11/03/2006, he had also

given a complaint before the Headmaster of School at about 06:00- 07:00

pm and thereafter, gone to police station for giving a complaint. In the

night at about 02:00-03:00, he got an information that the accused had

kidnapped his son Kallu. He could not remember which police had given

information regarding missing of his son. In paragraph 5 of his cross-

examination, this witness admitted that the dead body of his son Kallu was

recovered by police and at the time of recovery of dead body, there was no

red colour T-shirt. He could not remember that at the time of recording of

missing person report he had told that his son was wearing black colour

pant. The police had recorded his statements twice. In the next morning at

about 07:00-08:00, when he reached police station, accused persons were

present there.

This witness in paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, admitted that

at the time of giving missing report at police station Morar, he did not

mention name of any accused. He had gone with police to Simariya Forest

and near about one hour's time was taken to reach there. This witness

denied that unknown persons had kidnapped his son and on the basis of

doubt, he is telling against accused persons. This witness also denied that

because of death of his son and enmity, he is deposing falsely against

accused. This witness denied that he has made all his relatives as witnesses

in the case. The rest of evidence of this witness in his examination-in-chief

remained unchallenged.

On going through examination-in-chief and cross-examination of

this witness, it is emerged out that his son Kallu was missing. He

submitted a missing report before the police in which neither he had

mentioned names of any accused nor made any doubt on them. In the night

of the incident, police informed that his son has been traced. On the next

day morning, when he went to police station, he saw that that appellant

and other co-accused persons are sitting there.

(8.2.) Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar (PW4)

Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar (PW4), in his evidence, stated that on the

date of incident i.e. 11/03/2006 at about 01:00-1:30 pm, he was going on a

motorcycle to village Pasar along with his friend Guddu and when they

passed through SRK Higher Secondary School, Arya Nagar, they saw that

accused Satish Jatav, Suresh Jatav, Mukesh and Pramod Jatav are taking a

boy whose name is Kallu. He knows Kallu, the son of Nathu Singh,

because Nathu Singh is having a jewellery shop and he used to go to his

shop and Kallu was living in the bungalow. This witness also stated that he

knows appellant accused Satish because he was doing labour work under

Nathu Singh. In paragraph 2 of his statement, this witness stated that

appellant accused Satish and three others in their statements recorded

under Section 27 of Evidence Act, deposed that ''they have hidden the

dead-body of Kallu after killing him and same shall be recovered''. Dead

body of deceased Kallu was recovered vide Ex.P9 carrying signature of

this witness from ''A to A''. Police in his presence had recovered the dead

body of deceased from Simariya forest which was buried in a pit. This

witness in paragraph 3 of his evidence stated that the police did not arrest

the accused persons in his presence but he had seen that the accused

persons were sitting in the police station. In paragraph 5 of his cross-

examination, this witness stated that on the date of incident after taking

lunch at Pasar village, he returned to his house and did not discuss with

anybody about missing of deceased. On the next day, i.e. 12/03/2006, he

told at police station about taking away the deceased by accused persons.

This witness stated that he did not know as to why police did not mention

lane of SRK School in his police diary statement Ex.D1. He stated that

prior to one month of the incident, construction work of the house of

Jagdish Soni was going on and accused Satish was doing watchman-ship

in the house of Jagdish Soni and he did not tell from which date he was

working as watchman.

In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he admitted that the police

in his presence had arrested accused persons and he denied that police had

caused any injury to appellant accused Satish by means of lathi. In

paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, he stated that there was no injury on

the body of deceased Kallu and only a scarf (safi) was encircled with his

neck. He did not see any bloodstains because the dead body of deceased

was covered with some clay.

(8.3) Guddu Ghuraiya (PW13)

Guddu Ghuraiya (PW13) in his evidence stated that he knows

deceased Kallu, the father of deceased Nathu Singh and appellant accused

Satish and other co-accused Mukesh and Pramod. On 11/03/2006, he along

with his friend Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar was going on a motorcycle towards

Gole Ka Mandir and when they reached near culvert of Arya Nagar,

Morar, lane of SRK School, they saw that Kallu was with accused Satish

and co-accused Mukesh, Pramod and Suresh and they were going towards

Rapta. After seeing them, they went for their work. At Arya Nagar,

construction work of the house of Jagdish Soni was going on and appellant

-accused Satish used to do watchman in the house of Jagdish Soni, Arya

Nagar. This witness stated that he used to come and sit near the shop of

Nathu Singh because he used to go for repairing of his electric motor.

Appellant -accused Satish and co-accused Mukesh, Pramod and Suresh

also used to sit there. On the next day morning, when they reached Arya

Nagar, they saw that there was a crowd in-front of the house of Nathu

Singh and after enquiry, he came to know that deceased Kallu, son of

Nathu Singh is missing. Thereafter, they reached the police station and

narrated about missing of Kallu to police. On 12/03/2006, police recorded

his statement and in his presence, police arrested appellant accused Satish

and co-accused Suresh, Mukesh and Pramod vide arrest memo Ex.P1 to P4

carrying signature of this witness on it. During interrogation, appellant

accused Satish voluntarily disclosed that he with the conspiracy of co-

accused persons, has kidnapped deceased Kallu, son of Nathu Singh for a

ransom of Rs.3-4 lac, on which memorandum carrying his signature from

''A to A''. This witness further stated that the appellant Satish and other co-

accused during interrogation admitted that they had made a plan to kidnap

deceased Kallu for a ransom of Rs.3-4 lac and took the deceased to

Simriya forest and strangulated him by means of scarf (safi) and buried

him in a pit. The accused were asked for recovery of the dead body of

deceased. Thereafter, he along with police personnel and accused persons

went to the spot and at the time of recovery of dead body of deceased, the

dead body of deceased was found under a pit covered with clay and

stones. Seizure memo of dead body is Ex.P9 carrying signature of this

witness from ''B to B''.

This witness in his cross-examination narrated that prior to five

years of incident, he had gone to the house of Nathu Singh for repairing

motor of water pump and he did not take any bill from him. He knew

Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar for the last 8-10 years. He denied that on the date

of incident i.e. 11/03/2006, he was at village Parsen. Sanjeev met him

before culvert of Tyagi Nagar. He saw deceased Kallu from a distance of

10 ft. near SRK School and accused appellant Satish caught hold of the

hand of deceased Kallu. After seeing the deceased along with accused

persons, he went to village Pasaud and returned back at 11:00 pm. This

witness admitted that he did not disclose about missing of deceased Kallu

to anyone because nobody met him. He dropped Sanjeev at his residence.

He has no knowledge as to whether witness Sanjeev had disclosed to

someone or not about missing of the deceased. There was no talk with the

deceased and the accused persons on the way. This witness stated that he

shook hands and went away. Deceased Kallu was wearing red colour T-

shirt and cream colour pant. He could not say that the appellant-accused

and co-accused were wearing which colour of clothes. He came to know

about missing of Kallu on the next day after seeing crowd at the residence

of Nathu Singh at about 06:35 in the morning. At about 06:45 in the

morning, he went to police station Morar and Town Inspector recorded his

statement and after recording his statement, the statement of Sanjeev was

also recorded. In his presence, appellant-accused Satish and other co-

accused persons were brought to police station and their hands were

caught hold by police. On 12/03/2006, his statement was recorded twice,

one by Head Constable and one by Narwariya. The SHO enquired about

the incident but did not write his statement. After recording his statement,

the police vehicle reached Simariya forest and near about 10 minutes was

taken to reach that place. This witness stated that he did not know as to

whether there is 45 kilometers of distance from Morar to Simariya or not.

He knows SHO Ravi Dwivedi. This witness stated that he has studied up-

to Class-IV. He did not know names of police personnel who were sitting

in the police vehicle. This witness denied that he had disclosed to police

inspector Narwariya that deceased Kallu was with appellant accused Satish

and co-accused persons. He denied that in the night, police arrested the

accused persons. He denied that the police personnel had inflicted any

injury by means of lathi on the private part of appellant accused Satish and

misbehaved with accused persons. He denied that due to threatening, the

police personnel prepared false Ex.P5 to P8. His statement was recorded

by the SHO. At the time of recovery of dead body of deceased, he,

Sanjeev, Nathu Singh and other persons were present on the spot. When

the dead body of deceased was recovered, there was no red colour T-shirt

on his body. Recovery memo of the dead body of deceased was prepared

by SHO in his presence. He had no knowledge about demand of ransom

from Nathu Singh.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that he could not give any

reason as to why the date of incident i.e. 11/03/2006 has not been

mentioned in Ex.D7 and D8 and he could not say anything about their

going towards Rapta. They went towards Gole Ka Mandir, he could not

say anything as to why it was not mentioned in police diary statement

Ex.D7 and D8. In his statements, it is also not there that he used to come to

the residence of Nathu Singh for repairing of motor of water pump. He

could not say as to why in his statements Ex.D7 and Ex.D8 it was not

mentioned that when he reached Arya Nagar, there was a crowd in-front of

the house of Nathu Singh. He denied that due to relationship with Nathu

Singh, he is narrating false evidence.

On going through the examination-in-chief and cross-examination

of this witness, there are some contradictions and omissions on the point

that he along with Sanjeev was going towards Gole Ka Mandir. Rest of the

testimony of this witness remained unchallenged and on the behest of

appellant accused Satish and co-accused persons, the dead body of

deceased Kallu was recovered vide Ex.P9.

(8.4) Pulandar (PW3)

Pulandar (PW-3) in his evidence, has stated that he knows

complainant Nathu Singh, who is the father of deceased Kallu @ Trilok

Singh. He used to go to the shop of Nathu Singh where work of motor

binding is done. On the date of incident i.e. 11.03.2006, deceased Kallu @

Trilok Singh was kidnapped. On the aforesaid date, he along with the

father-in-law of his sister namely Narayan Singh was going to Rai Gaon

near Gathigaon. Thereafter, he sat in a jeep at Nehru Petrol Pump for going

towards Rai Gaon in which deceased Kallu along with appellant-accused

Satish, co-accused Mukesh, Pramod and Suresh also sat. When Jeep

stopped at Simariya Tekri, then all the four persons along with the

abductee got down from the jeep. On enquiry, the appellant-accused Satish

told that they are going to Sheetla Mata Mandir for Darshan. He used to

make ornaments from the shop of Soni. Appellant-accused Satish used to

do work of watchman at the shop of Soni. Mukesh, Suresh and Pramod

used to come there, that is why he knows them. Thereafter, he went to

Ghatigaon. On the next day, when he came to the shop of Soni, he heard

about Kallu. Then he narrated that yesterday, he had seen Kallu along with

appellant accused Satish and co-accused Mukesh, Suresh and Pramod at

Simariya Tiraha. Thereafter, he went to police station and police took his

statement. This witness identified accused persons before the trial Court.

He stated that he saw appellant/accused Satish and others for the first time

at the shop of Soni before 3-4 years back. When the house of Soni was

constructing, appellant Satish used to do work of watchman. His house

got constructed in 2-3 years. He does not know the date of Diwali and

Holi in the year 2006. Before 5 days of the incident, he had a talk with

appellant -Satish. His younger sister was married in Rai Gaon and on the

said date, he went to Rai Gaon to meet her sister. He started his journey at

about 12:30 pm from his house at Sironj Colony. He took a tempo from

Baradari Chauraha to Nehru Petrol Pump which is at a distance of 6-7 km.

He reached Rai Gaon by jeep which is 14 km from Nehru Petrol Pump. He

reached at 3 PM to Simariya Tiraha. At Simariya Tiraha, no shop except

forest is situated. He does not know the registration number of said jeep in

which he travelled from Nehru Petrol Pump to Rai Gaon. He returned from

Rai Gaon to his house in the evening of 12 th. He knows Nathu Singh since

2-4 years. The police did not go to his house, but he himself went to the

police station. He denied that his statement was recorded by Head

Constable. He had not gone to the house of Nathu Singh. On his narration,

his statement was taken. He admitted in his statement that he had not

stated in his statement recorded before the police that deceased Kallu was

made to get down from the jeep, but in his statement, he narrated that these

persons themselves got down from the jeep. The deceased Kallu was

wearing red colour T-shirt but he could not saw the colour of his pant.

After getting down at Simariya Tiraha, he could not say as to where the

appellant and other co-accused along with deceased had gone. He denied

that on the date of incident, he did not go to his sister's house. He denied

that because he and Nathu Singh belong to same caste, he is giving false

evidence.

On going through the examination-in-chief of this witness, it is

emerged out that that he knows deceased Kallu and appellant accused

Satish and three others. On the date of incident i.e. 11.3.2006 when he was

going to his sister's house to Rai Gaon by jeep, he saw that in that jeep

appellant accused along with co-accused Mukesh, Pramod and Suresh

were sitting along with deceased Kallu and they got down at Simariya

Tiraha. It is true that some discrepancies and contradictions came in his

evidence, but in the opinion of this Court, they are not of any significant

nature, rather they are trivial in nature, and therefore, on the basis of such

contradictions, whole evidence of this witness, who is a chance witness by

seeing deceased Kallu along with appellant-accused soon after his dead-

body was recovered from Simariya forest, does not become unreliable.

(8.5) Raghuveer Singh (PW5)

Raghuveer Singh (PW-5) in his evidence has stated that deceased

Kallu was his nephew. He knows appellant accused Satish and co-accused

Mukesh, Pramod and Suresh. On the date of incident i.e. 11.3.2006 at 1:00

pm he started his journey from village Ramauand and reached Military

Area Morar at 1.30 pm, where he saw deceased Kallu along with accused

persons. Appellant-accused Satish was catching hold of his hand and rest

of accused persons were going with him. When he reached SRK School

which is in Arya Nagar, he saw the accused persons near one Peepal tree.

He did not object his nephew on seeing him along with accused Satish

because he used to roam here and there along with accused Satish.

Thereafter, he went to Thatipur where his work was going on. The police

prepared dead body Panchnama which is Ex.P/11. Deceased Kallu died

due to strangulation.

During cross-examination, this witness admitted that he knows

witnesses Guddu, Chhiddaram, Pulandar, Virendra Singh, Navalsingh

because they are the residents of his village. From 1984 to 1994 he was

Sarpanch of village Ramaua. Thereafter, from 2000 to 2004 his sister-in-

law Kamlabai was Sarpanch. Nathu Singh is his younger brother who lives

in Arya Nagar. He also knows Jagdish Soni whose house is situated

adjacent to his house. He knows Satish since the house of Jagdish Soni

was got constructed. On the date of incident, he started his journey by

scooter and covered distance of 8 kms in around 20 minutes and he stayed

at Dongarpur for 5-7 minutes. Thereafter, at 1.30 pm he reached near

S.R.K. School. His statement was recorded on 12 th at 6 am by police. In

his police statement, he narrated that he saw the appellant and co-accused

near Peepal tree. He reached Simariya forest by police vehicle along with

Raghuveer Singh, Nathu, Jagannath Singh, Mahendrasingh & Surjeet

Singh. They reached the culvert Simariya at 9.30 pm and from there they

walked for a distance of 150-200 steps. The police thereafter prepared

dead body Panchnama within half an hour. At about 12 PM they reached

postmortem house for postmortem. He saw the dead body of deceased who

was wearing white colour T-shirt and black colour pant. His son

Bhupendra informed at Village Ramaua regarding missing of Kallu. He

denied that because his relations with Nathu Singh was not cordial,

therefore, he did not go to his house. He denied that he did not see the

deceased along with appellant and co-accused on the spot. He also denied

that due to blood relationship with the deceased and Nathu, he is giving

false statements.

(8.6) Chhiddaram (PW2)

Chhiddaram (PW2), in his evidence deposed that he knows Nathu

Singh who resides in the same village where he resides. At the time of

incident i.e. 11/03/2006, he was returning from Simariya, the in-laws

house of his younger brother and when he reached near crossing of

Simariya, he saw that one jeep stopped there which was coming from

Gwalior and from that jeep, appellant accused Satish, three others and

Kallu, son of Nathu Singh got down. He enquired from appellant-accused

Satish where you are going. He told that they are going to Sheetla Mata

Mandir. This witness stated that he knows appellant-accused Satish

because he was working as watchman at the house of Soni. Thereafter, all

of them went towards Sheetla Mata Mandir.

During cross-examination, this witness stated that he used to sell

bricks in front of the house of Nathu Singh that's why he knows him. In

the morning, he had returned from Simariya, the house of his relative and

reached near the crossing of Simariya at about 03:30 pm. There is neither

rail nor roadways bus available and many times jeep is the only source to

travel from Gwalior to Simariya Village. In the morning he had come from

Morar to Jiwajiganj by tempo and thereafter, he had gone to Simariya by

jeep and then reached Simariya within 1.15 hours. Deceased Kallu was

going along with appellant-accused Satish and three others and they had

caught hold of the hand of Kallu. This witness stated that he did not see

that at that time, either Kallu was weeping or there was any injury on his

body. On the date of incident, he directly came to his house. On the next

day i.e. 12/03/2006 at about 10:00-11:00 am, firstly he disclosed the

aforesaid fact to Raghuveer Singh, the Sarpanch of village Ramaua. This

witness stated that accused appellant Satish had worked as Watchman at

the house of Jagdish Soni for six months. On the date of incident, he had

talked only with appellant-accused Satish but he did not talk with deceased

Kallu. The person who was sitting in the chair in the police station, had

taken his statement. He denied that he did not see deceased Kallu with

appellant-accused Satish. He also denied that on the date of incident, he

did not go to Simariya. This witness further denied that due to friendship

with Nathu Singh, he is giving false evidence. Rest of the evidence of this

witness remained unchallenged.

After going through the examination-in-chief and cross-examination

of this witness, his testimony that on the date of incident i.e. 11/03/2006,

he had seen deceased Kallu along with appellant-accused Satish and three

others remained unshakened.

(8.7) Navalsingh Baghel (PW9)

Navalsingh Baghel (PW9), in his evidence stated that before two

years of the incident, in between 02:00 to 02:30 pm, he was going to

Tighra by his bicycle from Sabajimandi, Nehru Petrol Pump. He knows

Nathu Singh and his son Kallu as they both reside at Morar. On the date of

incident, Kallu was standing on the way. He enquired from him where he

is going. Kallu told him that he is going to Sheetla Mata Mandir along

with appellant-accused Satish for Darshan. Thereafter, on enquiry he came

to know that Kallu was going with appellant- accused Satish, Mukesh,

Pramod and Suresh. Afterwards, he went to Tighra and later on, he came to

know that Kallu is no more. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station

where his statement was recorded.

During cross-examination, this witness stated that he had seen

deceased Kallu from a distance of 15 ft. He could not state day and time of

the incident . He did not meet Nathu Singh, the father of deceased Kallu

and his uncle in police station. He does not know Guddu Ghuraiya. He did

not disclose to anybody that he had met the deceased on the way. This

witness deposed that deceased was wearing red colour T-shirt and he could

not say which colour pant the deceased was wearing. He could not say

which colour dress appellant-accused Satish was wearing at the time of

taking away deceased Kallu. This witness further stated that he did not

mention the time on which he had met deceased i.e. 02:00- 2:30 pm.

Appellant-accused Satish used to work as watchman at the house of

Jagdish Soni that is why he knows him. He does not know Jagdish Soni.

He did not complain to any senior police officer about the police personnel

who had taken his statement in which he did not mention the complete

story. Rest of the evidence of this witness remained unchallenged.

Looking to the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of this

witness, it is clear that on the date of incident, he had seen that the

deceased Kallu along with appellant-accused Satish and three others who

were going towards Sheetla Mata Mandir.

(8.8) Virendra Singh (PW10)

Virendra Singh (PW10) in his evidence stated that two years before

the incident, he was returning from Morar after bringing diesel for his

tractor and when he reached near SRK School, Rapta, he met deceased

Kallu along with appellant-accused Satish and three others. On being

asked, Kallu told him that they are going to Sheetla Mata Mandir for

Darshan. This witness stated that he knows accused Satish because he used

to work as watchman at the house of Soni.

During cross-examination, this witness admitted that he and the

father of deceased Nathu Singh are of similar caste. The petrol pump from

which he had purchased diesel is situated between Baradari Chaurah,

Morar. At the time of incident, the age of deceased Kallu is 5-6 years. This

witness stated that when construction of the house of Jagdish Soni was

going on, he had gone to his house where he met all the four accused

persons. He used to go to the house of Jagdish Soni but not to the house of

Nathu Singh. Near about 45 minutes time will take for reaching directly

the Petrol Pump Morar from village Ramaua. This witness stated that he

did not tell to Nathu Singh about the incident that he had seen his son

Kallu with appellant-accused Satish and others at Morar. He has no

knowledge about the distance from village Misatau to Sheetla Mata

Mandir and he knows that there is a Mandir at Simariya Village. Before

narrating the incident to police station, he did not tell to anybody. He does

not know the witness Guddu Ghuraiya. His statement was recorded by

SHO. He told the Town Inspector that he had seen deceased Kallu with

accused persons who were going to Sheetla Mata Mandir. This witness

further stated that he could not say as to why this fact in his police diary

statement Ex.D6 was not mentioned. He denied that he did not meet the

deceased along with appellant-accused along with three others and he is

giving false evidence. Rest of the evidence of this witness remained

unchallenged.

Looking to the evidence of this witness, it is emerged out that on

the date of incident, he had seen deceased Kallu with appellant-accused

Satish and other co-accused while he was returning to his house after

bringing diesel for his tractor.

(8.9) Jagdish Soni (PW1)

Jagdish Soni (PW1) in his evidence stated that Nathu Singh is his

neighbour, who resides at the house adjacent to his house in Arya Nagar.

He also knows the son of Nathu Singh (deceased Kallu alias Trilok Singh).

Before the incident, the construction of his house was going on and

appellant- accused Satish used to work as watchman at his house for a

period of six-seven months. Appellant- accused Satish developed friendly

relations with Nathu Singh. Thereafter, he also used to come to his house

along with co-accused Pramod, Mukesh and Suresh. On the date of

incident i.e. 11/03/2006 in between 12:00- 12:30 pm, appellant-accused

Satish came to his house along with Pramod, Mukesh and Suresh and

drunk water. After fifteen minutes, they went away. He could not say

where they had gone. Deceased Kallu was also along with them and all the

accused persons were telling to purchase a cap for deceased Kallu.

Thereafter, deceased Kallu could not be traced. He along with Nathu Singh

had gone to police station for lodging the report about missing of deceased

Kallu. In the evening, he had gone with police to the house of accused

appellant Satish at Ganeshpura where accused appellant Satish tried to fled

away from the spot but police apprehended him including other co-

accused Pramod, Mukesh and Suresh. All the accused persons admitted

that they have killed Kallu alias Trilok Singh and his dead body is lying at

Simariya forest. He had seen the dead body of deceased in the Hospital on

the next day. This witness stated that he knows all the accused persons

very well and they had taken away deceased on the date of incident.

During cross-examination, this witness stated that he had built his

house in the year 2004 and he had given construction work to the

contractor Omprakash alias Raju Chandel and appellant-accused Satish

was working as watchman. Within two and half years, construction was

completed and not a single paise had demanded by appellant-accused

Satish because the contractor Raju had given employment to him. At the

time of construction of his house, he was staying at Bhagwati Colony and

his shop is at Arya Nagar. On the date of incident, accused appellant Satish

had already left the job of watchman. On the date of incident, the accused

persons had come to him and after 5-10 minutes, they went away and he

did not know where they had gone. This witness stated that this fact has

been narrated to the police in his statement Ex.D1 but as to why the police

did not mention he could not say about it. This witness in his statement

Ex.D1 stated that it is true that he did not narrate about the fact that he had

seen the deceased Kallu with appellant-accused Satish and other co-

accused persons.

From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that if this witness had

seen deceased Kallu with appellant-accused Satish and others, he ought to

have narrated the incident in his police diary statement recorded on

12/03/2006, but this fact does not find place in his police diary statement

Ex.D1. Hence, his evidence that he had seen deceased Kallu with the

appellant-accused Satish and others is not trustworthy and reliable.

(8.10) Dr. PL Gupta (PW11)

Dr. PL Gupta (PW11) in his evidence stated that on 12/03/2006, he

was posted as Medical Officer, at JA Hospital, Gwalior. At about 11:30 am

the Constable Keshav Singh No.1592, Police Station Morar had brought

dead body of deceased Kallu alias Trilok Singh for postmortem. The father

of deceased of Nathu Singh identified the dead body of deceased. He had

conducted the postmortem of deceased Kallu. As per his opinion, death of

deceased was caused due to asphyxia and due to manual strangulation of

neck. Duration of death was 6-24 hours and the cause of death was

homicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Ex.P17. This witness denied

that the dead body of the deceased was one month old. This witness stated

that he could not say as to when the postmortem was completed. This

witness stated that police had not sent any document as to how death of

deceased has been caused with the help of towel. He had handed over the

safi (towel) to the constable with a sealed cover.

(8.11) NR Narwariya (PW12)

N.R.Narwariya(PW12) in his evidence deposed that on 11/03/2006

he was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at Morar Police Station. On

12/03/2006, Station House Officer directed him to conduct an enquiry on

missing person report No.18/2006. During enquiry, he recorded statements

of father of deceased Nathu Singh and other witnesses Guddu Ghuraiya

and Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar. Thereafter, he submitted his report to SHO

vide Ex.P18 carrying his signature from ''A to A''. On the basis of aforesaid

report, he registered FIR (Ex.P19) vide Crime No.188/2006 against

accused-appellant Satish and co-accused Pramod, Mukesh and Suresh.

During cross-examination, this witness stated that in between 6:00

to 07:00 in the morning on 12/03/2006, he had received missing person

report No.18/2006 along with written application of complainant. After

receiving the missing person report, firstly he along with Police Constable

went to the house of complainant Nathu Singh which is 2-3 furlong away

from police station and recorded statement of Nathu Singh and after

sometime, he recorded statements of witnesses Guddu Ghuraiya and

Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar and near about one hour time was taken in

recording statements of aforesaid witnesses. There was a crowd in front of

the house of complainant Nathu Singh and at about 01:00 pm, he returned

to police station and thereafter submitted report to the then SHO, BR

Dwivedi (PW15). He denied that he submitted report to SDO (P), Shri

Khanna. This witness further stated that he knows witnesses Guddu

Ghuraiya and Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar by face. He denied that both of them

are pocket witnesses of police. He denied that he recorded the statements

of Guddu Ghuraiya and Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar in the night of 11 th. He

denied that on the direction of the then Additional SP Shri Vineet Khanna,

he had conducted enquiry. He had conducted the enquiry on the direction

of the then SHO. Nathu Singh in his statement had stated that he has a

doubt about accused persons. He could not say how many persons were

present at the house of complainant Nathu Singh. In the written complaint

of complainant as well as in the missing person report, appellant-accused

Satish and other co-accused persons were not named. He denied that on

11/03/2006, he apprehended appellant-accused Satish and other co-

accused persons and brought to police station. He denied that in

connivance with complainant Nathu Singh, he recorded statements of

appellant-accused Satish and other co-accused persons. He denied that

because of enmity, he has lodged a false FIR against them. Rest of the

evidence of this witness remained unchallenged. Besides this, his evidence

is well-supported by complaint submitted by complainant Nathu Singh on

the basis of which missing person report No.18/2006 was recorded and

during enquiry, on the basis of report Ex.P18, he had registered FIR

against appellant-accused Satish and three others.

(8.12) BR Dwivedi (PW15)

By supporting prosecution version, the then Investigating Officer

BR Dwivedi (PW15) in his evidence stated that on 12/03/2006 he was

posted as SHO at police station Morar. He conducted investigation of

Crime No.188/2006 and during investigation, he arrested appellant-

accused Satish and other co-accused persons vide arrest memo Ex.P1 to

P3 carrying his signature from ''C to C''. During interrogation, appellant-

accused Satish and other co-accused voluntarily narrated that they have

killed deceased Kallu by encircling a scarf (safi) with his neck and hidden

his dead body in Simariya forest. Their memorandum Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 was

recorded by him carrying his signature from ''C to C''. Thereafter, he went

with appellant-accused Satish and other co-accused persons to Simariya

Forest for recovery of dead body of deceased and at the behest of

appellant-accused Satish, he recovered dead body of deceased Kallu vide

Ex. P9. Thereafter, he gave notice to witnesses, namely, Nathu Singh,

Surjeet, Jagnnath & Mahendra who were present on the spot vide safina

form Ex.P10 carrying his signature from ''B to B''. Thereafter, he prepared

the Panchnama of dead body of deceased vide Ex. P11 and prepared spot

map carrying his signature on it. After preparing Panchnama of dead body

of deceased, he sent the dead body of deceased Kallu for postmortem to JA

Hospital, Gwalior through constable Keshav Singh vide letter Ex.P21. This

witness stated that enquiry on the missing person report of deceased Kallu

alias Triok Singh was conducted by ASI Narwariya and report Ex.P18

bears his signature from ''B to B'' which was submitted before him by Shri

Narwariya on the basis of which, FIR was registered. During investigation,

he recorded statements of witnesses Jagdish Prasad Soni, Pulindar Singh

Gurjar, Nathu Singh Gurjar, Raghuveer Singh, Naval Singh, Virendra

Singh and Guddu Ghuraiya as per their version. After completion of

investigation, he submitted charge sheet before the Court.

During cross-examination, this witnesses stated that on 11/03/2006,

the complaint regarding missing person was received by Head Mohrair of

police station. This witnesses admitted that information Ex.P12 regarding

missing person is self-explanatory and the enquiry was conducted by ASI

Narwariya. Soon after recording of missing person report, enquiry was

handed over to ASI Narwariya. This witness denied that enquiry was

handed over on 12/03/2006. He got information about missing person in

between 11:00 to 12:00 in the night and he immediately directed ASI

Narwariya to register FIR. This witness in his cross-examination admitted

that that police had searched appellant-accused Satish and other co-

accused persons in Morar Laltipariya area. He could not say which

accused person was apprehended from which place. He admitted that copy

of intimation regarding arrest of accused persons is not available in record.

Thereafter, he stated that said intimation is available in case diary. This

witness admitted that at the time of recording statements he had not given

any intimation to the witnesses and statements were recorded in between

08:00 to 08:15 am at police station Morar. This witness admitted that there

was no mention regarding demand of ransom by accused in the report

Ex.P18 submitted by Narwariya. He could not say that he recorded

statement of witnesses Naval Singh and Brajendra Singh at the time of

investigation. He did not give notice to the witnesses before recording their

statements. This witness deposed that map Panchnama Ex.P11 is of other

handwriting and he had only put his signature on it. This witness further

stated that the distance from the police station Morar to Simariya forest is

30 kilometers. He denied that distance is 65 kilometers. This witness

admitted that at the crossing of Ghatigaon, there is Sheetla Mata Mandir.

He went to the spot by Mahindra Pick-up bearing registration No.MP-P-

4217 in which 16-17 persons can sit. He did not send accused persons for

medical examination after their arrest. He took order of remand of

concerning Judicial Magistrate from police station Morar and thereafter,

accused persons were to custody and afterwards, they were sent for

medical examination vide Ex.P19 and their medical examination was

conducted by doctor at 07:05 pm. This witness denied that he had

committed any ''marpeet'' with appellant-accused Satish by which he

sustained a fracture on his hand as well as injury on his private part and his

treatment was going on for a period of six months. This witness further

denied that he had treated other co-accused persons with cruelty. This

witness denied that on the basis of map prepared by Patwari, he had

prepared spot map. When Panchnama of dead body of deceased was

prepared, rigor mortis were present on the dead body of deceased. He had

prepared Panchnama of dead body of deceased in presence of witnesses.

This witness stated that the spot is within the territory of Police Station

Ghatigaon. This witness admitted that because of ample police force with

him, he did not give any information to police station Ghatigaon that the

dead body of deceased has been hidden from a distance of 200 ft from

main road. This witness denied that he is having knowledge that from the

gun of Nathu Singh, his elder brother was killed and due to this, in order to

take a revenge, the wife of elder brother of Nathu Singh, namely,

Raghuveer Singh has kidnapped Kallu and committed his murder. This

witness denied that witnesses Sanjeevsingh Sikarwar and Guddu Ghuraiya

are very close with family of complainant Nathu Singh. He admitted that

he could not mention regarding seizure of towel (scarf) by which deceased

Kallu was strangulated. He could not say that along with him, SHO Gole

Ka Mandir & DSP (Crime Branch) had also gone to the spot. He denied

that he did not give any information to police station Morar during

investigation. He also denied that he had conducted whole investigation by

sitting in police station and created fabricated evidence against appellant-

accused Satish and other co-accused. The rest of the evidence of this

witness remained unchallenged.

(9) Although there is some discrepancy in the evidence of Sub-

Inspector NR Narwariya (PW12) and Investigating Officer, SHO BR

Dwivedi (PW15) regarding submission of report by Narwariya but it is

abundantly clear that FIR was got registered by NR Narwariya against

appellant-accused Satish and three others on 12/03/2006 at 1:30 am.

Besides this, statement of Narwariya was recorded two years after his

retirement. Thus, this possibility cannot be ruled out that due to passage of

time, this witness could not remember about it. The statement of BR

Dwivedi (PW15) is well-supported by FIR (Ex.P19), which was got

registered by Assistant Sub-Inspector Narwariya on 12/03/2006. Hence,

this discrepancy is of no help to the defence.

(10) In order to lead defence evidence, accused-appellant Satish

examined himself as DW1 and Dr.A. K. Singh as DW2.

(10.1) Appellant-accused Satish (DW1), in his court statement deposed

that police had caught hold of him on 11/03/2006 when he was returning to

his house at about 06:00 pm. In the police station he was beaten by Town

Inspector, due to which he received injury in his anus. After sending him to

jail, no medical examination was conducted. In his cross-examination, he

has admitted that neither his hand was broken nor he received any injury in

his anus.

(10.2) Dr.A.K.Singh (DW2) in his evidence deposed that on 02/09/2005,

he was posted as Medical Officer, Central Jail, Gwalior. He examined the

appellant-accused on various dates and found that the health condition of

appellant-accused to be good and there was no injury on his body. In

regard to the fact that appellant-accused has received some injury due to

marpeet committed with him by police, no statement or x-ray has been

taken. He further stated that health condition of the appellant at present is

good and in this regard, he prepared his report which is Ex.D9 carrying his

signature from ''A to A''.

In cross-examination, this witness admitted that during entry in jail

health condition of the appellant-accused was found good and no injury

was found in his anus and his hand was also not found to be broken.

From the evidence of aforesaid Defence Witnesses, it is clear that

the appellant-accused has levelled false allegation of committing marpeet

with him by the police. He himself admitted in his cross-examination that

neither his hand was broken nor he received any injury in his anus and Dr.

AK Singh (DW2) has also deposed in the same line.

(11) It is well-established principle of law that where the case is based

on direct evidence and the evidence led by prosecution is worth-reliance,

then the same cannot be discarded merely on the ground of absence of any

motive of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yogesh

Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and Others, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 195,

has held as under:-

''46.......It is a settled legal proposition that even if the absence of motive, as alleged, is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, motive loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. ''

(12) As far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant that there

are various discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses is

concerned, in the opinion of this Court there are only minor discrepancies

in the statements of witnesses and their evidence is firm on material

aspect. The Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun and Others vs.

State of Karnataka, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 359 has held as under :-

"14. Observing that minor discrepancies and inconsistent version do not necessarily demolish the prosecution case if it is otherwise found to be creditworthy, in Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 12 SCC 187, it was held as under:-

32. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudaya Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 671, para 30)

"30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587.)"

33. ....... this Court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 has observed as under: (SCC p. 740, para43)

"43. ... It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very particular in their exercise of appreciating evidence. The approach to be adopted is, if the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the same appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may become necessary for the court to

scrutinise the evidence more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a whole, and evaluate them separately, to determine whether the same are completely against the nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses, and whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation, rendering it unworthy of belief."

(Emphasis supplied)

(13) The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi

Ram, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254, has held as under:-

''23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Re. Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Madras, 218.

24.There is considerable force in the argument of counsel for the State that in the facts of this case as well it should be held that the respondent having been seen last with the deceased, the burden was upon him to prove what happened thereafter, since those facts were within his special knowledge. Since, the respondent failed to do so, it must be held that he failed to discharge the burden cast

upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. This circumstance, therefore, provides the missing link in the chain of circumstances which prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.''

1.

(14) In the light of above judgment, it is evident that as per provisions of

''last seen'' theory, if a person is the last seen with the deceased just before

his death or within a reasonable period of his death that no other person

could have intervened in between them, then the presumption can be taken

that he (the person who was last seen) is the author of the crime. As per

evidence of Sajeevsingh Sikarwar (PW4) and Guddu Ghuraiya (PW13),

deceased Kallu was last seen in the company of appellant-accused and

other co-accused persons. Thereafter, on the basis of memorandum u/S. 27

of the Evidence Act of accused persons, the dead body of deceased was

recovered from the spot. On the basis of complaint submitted by

complainant Nathu Singh,enquiry was conducted by police and in enquiry,

it was found that appellant-accused along with other co-accused had

kidnapped deceased Kallu and on the basis of missing person report, FIR

was lodged and accused persons were apprehended and dead body of

deceased was recovered from the spot and accused persons could not

justify the same. Arrest and seizure memo are also well-supported by

prosecution witnesses.

(15) In the light of above discussion, there is cogent evidence on record

which proves guilt of appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence,

we are of the opinion that prosecution has succeeded to establish guilt of

appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt.

(16) After scrutinizing the evidence with great care of all the prosecution

evidence, this Court is of the opinion that all the circumstances point

towards guilt of appellant - accused. Hence, the trial Court has rightly

convicted appellant-accused for commission of offence u/S.302/34 IPC r/w

Se.13 of the MPDVPK Act. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and

sentence dated 24/12/2009 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK), Gwalior

in Special Sessions Trial No.83/2006 is affirmed.

(17) As a consequence thereof, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(18) Appellant is in jail. He be intimated with the result of this appeal

through the concerning Jail Superintendent.

The trial Court record be returned back along with certified copy of

this judgment.

          (G. S. Ahluwalia)                                       (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
               Judge                                                        Judge




MKB


                Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK


  MAHENDRA
                DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
                MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
                postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh,

KUMAR BARIK 2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a1a9e345 1ee450d883083a8e4cc8020eee6f7cb, cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2021.10.22 15:14:00 +05'30'