Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40014
1 CRA-1291-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1291 of 2025
DHARMENDRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ram Bahadur Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant No.2
Manish Tiwari.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1926 of 2025
AJEET CHOUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Harshit Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Both these appeals are filed by the convicted appellants being
aggrieved of judgment dated 20.01.2025, passed by learned 15th Additional
Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.C. No.100676/2014, whereby appellants have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40014
2 CRA-1291-2025
been convicted in the following manner:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
Life R.I for 3
120-B I.P.C. Rs.10,000/-
Imprisonment years
Life R.I for 3
302/149 I.P.C. Rs.10,000/-
Imprisonment years
R.I for
201 I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years Rs.10,000/-
2 years
While hearing applications for suspension of sentence, we are
constrained to note as pointed out by Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned counsel
for the appellants and Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for
the State that in a case of circumstantial evidence where prosecution case is
that deceased Pintu was to perform his marriage with Roshni and in the garb
of preparation for marriage, mother of Roshni, Smt. Bhagwati Bai, had taken
advance of Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-, but instead of performing
marriage of her daughter Roshni with deceased Pintu, where she would have
been required to refund the loan amount, she and Dharmendra hired Ajeet
and Manish as contract killers by paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- to eliminate
Pintu.
This case is proved through circumstantial evidence of call details, as
contained in Ex.P-32 to Ex.P-37 proved by Saji Mathai (PW-20) and have
also using FSL report, Ex.P-42 and P-43, but unfortunately learned trial
Court Judge, Shri Rajesh Nandeshwar, who was working as 15th Additional
Sessions Judge, Jabalpur did not deem it proper to put any of the questions to
the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. either on the aspect of FSL report
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40014
3 CRA-1291-2025
or on the aspect of CDR. He did not even deem it proper to put
circumstances which have been proved by Fagan Singh Markam (PW-21), in
paragraph 18, in the form of various articles, which form chain of
circumstances against the appellants.
We are cautious of the fact that reputation of a Judicial Officer and his
working should not be casually commented upon because it impinges on the
reputation of the judicial system as a whole. However, when we perused
provision contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of Cr.P.C., then it
provides that "in every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the
accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him, the Court -
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such
questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined
and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the
case:
Provided that in a summons - case, where the Court has dispensed
with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his
examination under clause (b)."
In the said section, emphasis is to bring to the notice of the accused
'circumstances appearing in evidence against him'.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor admits that
presence of blood stains of human origin in FSL report, Ex.P-42 and P-43
and CDR details, as contained in Ex.P-32 to Ex.P-37, are important events in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40014
4 CRA-1291-2025
the chain of circumstantial evidence and they have not been put before the
accused persons, that is accused persons were not confronted with this vital
piece of evidence.
It is a major lapse.
On the one hand, it impinges on the credibility of the judicial system
that how innocent or apparently innocent person may face not only the trial
but sentence without being confronted with the evidence which appeared
against them and i.e. on the other hand rights of the parties to the trial.
In view of such facts, impugned judgment dated 20.01.2025 is set
aside. Matter is remitted to the trial Court to frame additional questions under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to confront the accused persons and record its finding
within 30 days from today.
Original record be sent back, immediately.
Because, we are of the opinion that it is not a case of mere omission
which can be corrected in an appeal but it's a case of glaring negligence and
lack of legal knowledge which cannot be allowed to perpetuate at the cost of
innocent persons, as much as their life and liberty is as precious as the
credibility of a Judicial Officer. Therefore, it's a case of gross negligence and
lack of legal knowledge.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, with heavy heart, we
are constrained to order departmental enquiry against Shri Rajesh
Nandeshwar for such a major lapse which not only affects the life and liberty
of an individual but also shows that there is a systematic failure in
understanding and application of law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40014
5 CRA-1291-2025
Let aforesaid proceedings in regard to framing of additional questions
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. not only in regard to the aforesaid two
circumstances pointed out by us, but any other additional circumstance
which may appear from the evidence be put to the accused persons and after
recording their statements and giving an opportunity of hearing to the
parties, case be decided afresh within a period of 30 days from today. Since
appellants are in custody, questions may be framed expeditiously.
Enquiry be also conducted and report be submitted within three
months.
At this stage, Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for
the State submits that CDR reports starting from Ex.P-32 to Ex.P-37 and FSL
report Ex.P-42 and 43 were exhibited on a later date and since they are
received late, therefore, trial Court Judge cannot be blamed.
We appreciate this approach of the learned Government Advocate, but
we are also constrained to record that this observation of the learned
Government Advocate is contrary to the record. Ex.P-42 was exhibited by
PW-21 on 28.02.2023. Similarly, Ex.P-32 to P-37 were exhibited by PW-20
on 25.01.2023.
Questions under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were prepared and put to the
accused on 18.12.2024, therefore, there is time gap of over one year when the
FSL report and CDR were made available on record.
Thus, submission of Shri Manas Mani Verma is an attempt to absolve
the learned trial Court Judge, appears to be an effort in vain. It is contrary to
the record. There was time lapse of more than one year when evidence of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40014
6 CRA-1291-2025
PW-20 was recorded on 25.01.2023 and that of PW-21, who proved Ex.P-42,
FSL report, was examined on 28.02.2023.
With the aforesaid directions, both these appeal are disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MTK
