Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radhelal vs State Of M.P. on 17 April, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17923
1 CRA-422-1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 17th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 422 of 1996
RADHELAL
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shweta Yadav Deputy Advocate General for
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.02.1996
passed by the learned Session Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T No. 44/1992.
By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence under
section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is very simple. The
allegation against the appellant herein is that he gave a poisonous laddu
to the deceased and compelled him to eat it under threat of setting him
on fire. The main piece of evidence is that Dehati Nalishi on the basis of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17923
2 CRA-422-1996
which the F.I.R has been registered. The undisputed fact of the
prosecution case is that the Dehati Nalishi was recorded at the hospital
by the Investigating Officer, who is PW-18. In the Dehati Nalishi it is
stated by the deceased that certain other persons were chasing him with
lathi in order to beat him. The deceased says he was running to the
police station to intimate the police about the impending assault on him
by the others. The deceased says that he met the appellant on the way
who asked him where he was going, to which the deceased says that
certain other persons were trying to assault him, and he was going to the
police station to register a complaint against them. Upon this, the
appellant is alleged to have told the deceased that not go to the police
station and that he will bring about a compromise between him
(deceased) and other persons namely Shreenai, Laxman, Jagdish and
Harlal, wanted to beat and kill him but Shankar Patel, Ramu Patel and
Gulthu Patel interceded. Thereafter, the appellant told the deceased that
you have not eaten anything today so eat this laddu and gave a laddu to
the deceased to eat. The deceased upon refusing to eat the laddu, was
allegedly compelled to consume the same under threat of being set on
fire by the appellant. Out of fear, the deceased is stated to have
consumed the laddu, which was laced with poison. After giving the
Dehati Nalishi, the deceased dies and therefore the same has been taken
as a dying declaration. In the Dehati Nalishi/dying declaration, the name
of the person who gave the laddu is only given as "Radhe". The name of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17923
3 CRA-422-1996
the appellant is Radhelal, S/o Kodulal Nai. It is relevant to mention here
that the name of the father of "Radhe" who gave him the laddu is not
mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this
court to the statement of PW-1, who is the Kotwar of the village, who
states in his cross-examination that there are one or two persons by this
name of "Radhe" in the village. Thus, on the basis of absence of specific
identity, which could connect the present appellant exclusively to
"Radhe" mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi by the deceased, a conviction is
not possible as per the statement given by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State has drawn the attention
of this Court to the statement of Umrao Singh (PW-6) the real brother of
the deceased. This witness states that he had gone to the hospital, where
the deceased told him the same very facts which are there in the Dehati
Nalishi. This witness also only mentions that it was "Radhe" who gave
the laddu to the deceased. Radhe's father name or the address by which
the proper identity of the appellant could be fixed as the person who gave
the laddu to the deceased does not come on record from this statement.
Learned counsel for the State has also referred to the statement Hammo
Bai (PW-7), who is wife of the deceased, who states that the deceased is
her husband. She says that after having a bath, one Shreenai, Laxman,
Jagdish and Harlal came to their house with lathies, kharda, ballam and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17923
4 CRA-422-1996
came near the well and started abusing the deceased. Upon which, the
deceased ran away to save himself, upon which Shankar Patel, Ramu
Patel and Gulthu Patel tried to intercede. She says out of fear, she
fainted at her home itself. It is relevant to mention that those persons
named by this witness in her statement as those who had come to assault
the deceased were never accused persons and were never tried. Beside,
the incident leading to the death of the deceased is hearsay evidence of
PW-7 as she herself states that this information was given to her by her
brother-in-law, who had met the deceased before he died in the hospital.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the trial Court.
6. The postmortem report clearly reflects that the deceased died on
account of asphyxia. The doctor however says in his cross examination
that the deceased could not have suffered from asphyxia on account of
eating a toxic substance. F.S.L report is Ex.P-14, which reflects that
from the viscera which is exhibit A, B and C of the deceased has tested
positive for copper sulphate poisoning. Thus the opinion of the doctor
notwithstanding, it is apparent from the viscera report that the deceased
died on account of ingesting poison.
7. However, the main question is who gave the poisonous laddu to
the deceased. The deceased has only mentioned the name "Radhe". PW-
1, who is Kotwar to the village, states that there are one or two "Radhe"
in the village. In the absence of father's name or the address or the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17923
5 CRA-422-1996
address of "Radhe" who administered the poisonous laddu lives, it is
impossible for this Court to arrive at the conclusion that it was the
present appellant alone who was referred to as "Radhe" in the Dehati
Nalishi (Ex.P-11). We have also considered the contention of learned
counsel for the State, who say in the Dehati Nalishi, the person who gave
the laddu to the deceased is named as "Radhe Sarathe", while the name
of present appellant is Radhelal, S/o Kodulal Nai. In the absence of
specific evidence brought on record by the prosecution that "Radhe
Sarathe" is the same as Radhelal Nai and there is no other Radhelal
Nai/Sarathe in the village, the doubt persists. Besides, there is no motive
attributed to the appellant at all to murder the deceased. As for the case
of the prosecution, the appellant is stated to have informed the deceased
that he would bring about a compromise between him and the others
who were wanting to assault him. There is no motive that is attributed to
the appellant herein as to what he would gain by killing the deceased.
The prosecution's case is not based on any previous enmity of the
deceased with the present appellant. Under the circumstances, this Court
holds that the identity of the appellant has not been fixed as the person
who killed the deceased by administering the poisonous laddu. This is
also strengthened by the fact that the prosecution has failed to bring out
any motive of the appellant to kill the deceased. Further, the contention
of the prosecution that the appellant who met the deceased by chance
was carrying a poisonous laddu in the hope of administering the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17923
6 CRA-422-1996
poisonous laddu to the deceased upon chance meeting with the deceased
is farfetched and improbable.
8. On the basis of what has been argued, considered and held by
this Court hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that though there has
been suspicion that would have existed against appellant herein, the
same does not extend to the extent of indelible proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Consequently, present appeal is allowed. The judgment of
conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. As the appellant is
on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
information and compliance.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
tarun
