Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pravesh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17899
1 CRA-8722-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 17th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8722 of 2018
PRAVESH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Teekaram Tantuvay - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari - Government Advocate for the respondent-
State.
Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the objector.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9114 of 2018
BHAGWAN DAS @ BHAGOLA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harsh Gupta - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari - Government Advocate for the respondent-
State.
Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the objector.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17899
2 CRA-8722-2018
Since these appeals are arising out of the same crime number and
judgment, therefore, these appeals are heard analogously and are being
decided by a common judgment.
2. These appeals under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. have been
preferred by the appellants being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 07.08.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Damoh, District Damoh (M.P.) in Special
Case No.200009/2016 whereby the appellant-Pravesh Yadav has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(iv) of SC & ST
(POA) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life with fine amount of
Rs.500/- and Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 03 years with fine amount of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. The
appellants-Bhagwan Das @ Bhagola Adiwasi and Param @ Malla Adiwasi
in connected appeal have been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 436/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
Life with the fine amount of Rs.500/- each and Section 429 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine amount of
Rs.500/- each with default stipulations.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are
innocent. The prosecution story is that Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) made a report
that at about 08 days prior to this incident which took place on 06.10.2015.
Grass grown on the boundaries of the field was put to fire but he could
prevent that fire as a result of which he did not proceed against the accused
persons. Thereafter, on 06.10.2015 at about 10:00 pm, Bhagola Adiwasi and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17899
3 CRA-8722-2018
Param Adiwasi called Raju Yadav (absconding) and Pravesh Yadav and
abused them thereafter exhorted that his house be put on fire as a result of
which Bhagola Adiwasi and Param Adiwasi took a mashal and Raju and
Pravesh had taken kerosene oil in a can and had put house of Lattu Adiwasi
on fire as a result of which all the household goods including the
stored grains got burnt. Besides this, two she goats and one he goat also got
burnt and died.
4. It is submitted that the whole story of the prosecution is concocted
and is result of old enmity. It is pointed out that incident took place on
06.10.2015. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-15) was recorded on 07.10.2015 at 15:30
hours. It is submitted that FIR (Ex.P-16) was lodged on 07.10.2015 at about
21:37 hours. It is submitted that Dehati Nalishi and FIR do not corroborate
with the stand taken by Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) s/o Nandu Gond who is author
of both the documents.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
objector have opposed the prayer and supports the judgment of the trial
Court, submitting that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence,
hence, no interference is called for. There is no substances in these appeals,
hence, the appeals be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is pointed out that Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) cited Santosh
Gond (PW-2) as an eye-witness. He turned hostile. Gunjan Bai (PW-3), too,
turned hostile and she admits that on the next day of the incident, she came
to know that house of Lattu Adiwasi was put on fire as a result of which his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17899
4 CRA-8722-2018
goats got burnt.
8. Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) has though supported the prosecution case
but in para no.6 of his cross-examination, he has stated that on seeing the
accused persons, he had ran towards the Police Station. On reaching Police
Station, he had recorded the report. He further states that report was not read
over to him. He was accompanied with his sister Gunjan Bai (PW-3),
Santosh Gond (PW-2) and Sumatrani (PW-9). He admitted that he could not
state that as to what was the extent of loss in his house because he is not
staying in his village since the date of the incident. In para no.7 of his cross-
examination, he has further stated that there were about 15 teak plants, one
Chebla (Palash) and mango tree in his agricultural field which measures
about 2 acres.
9. Prior to that in para no.5 of his cross-examination, he has given the
extent of loss of his grains to the extent of 20 bags of urad, 5 bags of moong,
3 bags of chana and 9 bags of wheat.
10. Sumatrani (PW-9) is the wife of Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8). She has
admitted in her cross-examination that they had visited the Police Station in
night for recording their report, but report (Ex.P-15), i.e. Dehati Nalishi, was
recorded on the next day at about 3:30 pm defies the statements of Lattu
Adiwasi (PW-8) and Sumatrani (PW-9).
11. As far as quantity of grains which got damaged in fire is
concerned, there are also contradictions inasmuch as Sumatrani (PW-9)
stated that there was 1 bag of urad, 2 bags of chana, 4 bags of wheat, 2 bags
of moong and 1 bag of tili which got burnt. However, she stated that there
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17899
5 CRA-8722-2018
are about 10-25 teak trees and except for teak trees, there is no other tree
grown on their fields.
12. This contradiction in regard to the facts stated by Lattu Adiwasi
(PW-8) and Sumatrani (PW-9) renders the prosecution story doubtful.
13. R.B. Pandey (PW-11) admitted that on 07.10.2015, he was posted
as A.S.I. at Police Chowki Bandakpur of Police Station Hindoria. At about
03:30 pm, Lattu s/o Nandu had visited Police Chowki Bandakpur to report
the matter. He had lodged report against Bhagola, Param, Raju and Pravesh.
He had informed that on 06.10.2015 at about 10:00 pm, Bhagola, Param,
Raju and Pravesh had put his house on fire which resulted in loss of goods
besides live stock. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he
had not read over the Dehati Nalish i. He also admitted that before recording
the Dehati Nalishi or First Information Report, he had not visited the place of
the incident. He further admits that he had received intimation about the
incident at about 10:00 am on the next day. He admits that he cannot say as
to when he had gone to the place of the incident after receiving information
at 10:00 am.
14. D.K. Dixit (PW-6) retired Dy. S.P., who had investigated the
matter, admitted that on 09.10.2015, he had visited the place of the incident
and prepared spot map (Ex.P-9). He states that on the spot map, Lattu had put
his thumb impression. This statement is contrary to Lattu who stated in his
cross-examination that he had never visited the place of the incident after his
house was put on fire. Thus, spot map being prepared at the place of the
incident becomes doubtful. He has also admitted that he had prepared a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17899
6 CRA-8722-2018
damage panchnama (Ex.P-10) which contains the signature of Lattu but in
his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not made mention of the
extent of damage in the said panchnama (Ex.P-10).
15. D.K. Dixit (PW-6) further admitted that he had not made recovery
of any of the burnt articles. He further admitted that he had not made any
mention of the circumstances under which two she goats and one he goat
were found to be burnt. He further admitted that in spot map (Ex.P-9), he has
not mentioned as to whose house was shown in the spot map. He has denied
the suggestion that he had not interrogated any of the witnesses at village
Sugarkhor Tola and stated that he had recorded the statements of Santosh
Adiwasi, Raghuvar and Uttam. However, he admits that none of the
statements are in his handwriting and there is no mention of the place and
time of recording such statements.
16. Thus, when the evidence is examined, then firstly Santosh Gond
(PW-2) so called eye-witness has turned hostile. He has not supported the
prosecution case.
17. Dr. Vipin Bihari Shukla (PW-1) has stated that he had carried out
post mortem on 07.10.2015 whereas D.K. Dixit (PW-6) has stated that he
had prepared Nukshani Panchnama on 09.10.2015, in which he had shown
loss of 2 she goats and 1 he goat but when the post mortem was conducted
on 07.10.2015, then it is evident that these goats were not available at the
place of the incident on 09.10.2015, when damage panchnama was prepared.
18. Firstly presence of the complainant is doubtful as to the presence
of the appellants and secondly his conduct that if appellants had put his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17899
7 CRA-8722-2018
house on fire then his natural conduct would have been to untie the animals
so that they would have ran away for their lives. There are no signs of
conflict also available to demonstrate or circumstantially prove the presence
of the complainant at the place of the incident. Even it is not the case of the
prosecution that the appellants were armed with deadly weapons or any
firearm so to cause threat to the life of the complainant and his family
members.
19. Gunjan Bai (PW-3) is a hearsay witness. She has not supported the
prosecution case. The only two persons who have supported the prosecution
case are Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) and Sumatrani (PW-9) who are husband and
wife. However, there are material contradictions in their evidence which
does not inspire confidence as to their statements. Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8)
after having stated that he had seen the incident in his cross-examination
admitted that he had run away towards Police Station after seeing the
accused persons. He also stated that his wife Sumatrani (PW-9) accompanied
him towards Police Station. Thus, it is evident that Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8)
and Sumatrani (PW-9) are not the eye-witnesses to the incident and
therefore, conviction merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures cannot
be upheld inasmuch as there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and merely
on the basis of old enmity taking names of certain persons with whom the
complainant was having enmity is not a sufficient circumstance to hold
appellants' guilty. In absence of eye-witness account, prosecution was
obliged to complete the chain of circumstances to point out that apart from
the appellants no body else can be said to have caused that incident, as a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17899
8 CRA-8722-2018
result of which house and property of the complainant was lost, this Court is
of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction having been passed
on surmises and conjectures deserves to be set aside and is set aside. The
appeals are allowed.
20. The case property be disposed of in terms of the orders of the trial
Court.
21. Record of the trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
HK
