Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajubai vs The State Of M.P. on 29 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
1 CRA-431-2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 431 of 2002
RAJUBAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Gupta - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam -G.A for the respondent/State.
Reserved on 05.05.2025
Delivered on 29.08.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
This criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is
preferred challenging the conviction under section 302 alternatively
302 read with section 34 of the IPC and sentence of life
imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of
2years additional simple imprisonment vide judgment dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
2 CRA-431-2002
16.03.2002 in Sessions Case No.51/2002 by IInd A.S.J, Ujjain.
2. Facts in brief are that appellant No.1 Rajubai was familiar to
deceased Amarlal and deceased Amarlal was intending to settle the
marriage of Rajubai through customary mode of Natra or to receive
money in lieu of Rajubai. In between appellant no.1 Rajubai
married to appellant no.2 Prakash @ Pappu. Due to the marriage of
Amarlal with Rajubai appellant Prakash @ Pappu raised an
objection regarding the Natra ceremny of Rajubai by Amarlal and on
03.11.2001 Prakash @ Pappu reached the house of Amarlal in the
morning time and threatened for dire consequences, if Amarlal tried
to the Natra of Rajubai. In the night of 03.11.2001 both the
appellants/accused were seen with Amarlal at Udayan Marg, Ujjain.
At that time Amarlal was intoxicated. In the morning of 04.11.2001
the body of Amarlal was found in the graveyard where dead bodies
of children are buried. The body of Amarlal was seen for the first
time by a sweeper Munnalal (PW/7) and intimated the Police vide
Ex.P/7. Thereafter a crime no.666/2001 was registered at PS
Madhav Nagar, Ujjain. The investigating agency came into motion
and necessary formalities were completed and autopsy was
completed. The statements were recorded and the appellants were
taken into custody on 05.11.2001. The memorandum of information
of Rajubai was recorded as Ex.P/8 and a plain dhoti with white
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
3 CRA-431-2002
border and a petticoat was recovered vide Ex.P/9. The
memorandum of information of Prakash @ Pappu was recorded as
Ex.P/10 and a weapon santoor, jeans pant, lining shirt were
recovered vide Ex.P/11 on 05.11.2001. All the properties were
forwarded to FSL, Sagar for forensic examination vide Ex.P/12.
After completing investigation, a final report was submitted to the
Court of CJM, Ujjain where criminal case no.3866/2001 was
registered and vide order dated 14.01.2022 the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions.
3. During trial the report of forensic science laboratory was
submitted to the Court of Sessions on 14.03.2002 and copy of that
report was provided to the defence on 15.03.2002 and further
examination of appellants under section 313 of the Cr.P.C was
conducted regarding FSL report.
4. Appellants abjured the guilt and claimed for trial regarding the
charges under section 302, 302 read with section 34 of the IPC.
5. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined as many as 9
witnesses including Prahlad, son of the deceased Amarlal as PW/1,
Rajesh as PW/2, Ajaykumar as PW/3, Premnarayan as PW/4,
Assistant Surgeon, district hospital Dr.R.S Dangarh as PW/5,
Bherulal as PW/6, Munnalal as PW/7, Inspector Y.P. Singh as PW/8
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
4 CRA-431-2002
and Head Constable Rakesh Narayan as PW/9.
6. In examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C all the facts and
circumstances appeared against them were either denied or
ignorance was expressed. They adduced no defence.
7. Appreciating evidence, trial court found proved that (i)
appellants have a motive to eliminate Amarlal on 0311.2001. (ii)
The appellants went to the house of Amarlal and threatened through
Prahlad (PW/1) in the morning of 03.11.2001. (iii) In the night of
03.11.2001 both the appellants were seen in the company of the
deceased Amarlal. (iv) The dead body of Amarlal was found in the
morning on 04.11.2001 in the graveyard situated near the place they
were last seen with Amarlal. (v) The death was caused within 6 to 24
hours from the autopsy that was conducted at 2.35 p.m on
04.11.2001. (vi) Blood stained santoor and blood stained pant, shirt
were recovered from the appellant Prakash. (vii) Blood stained saree
and petticoat were recovered from the appellant Rajubai on
05.11.2001.
8. On the proof of above those evidence, trial court found the
appellants guilty for committing the murder of Amarlal in
furtherance of their common intention and convicted and sentenced
as per para-1 of the judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
5 CRA-431-2002
9. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been
preferred on the ground that independent witnesses has not
supported the memorandum of information and recovery of articles
from the appellants. The trial court ignored this vital aspect. The
case depends on circumstantial evidence and the trial court
committed error in evaluation of the evidence brought on record to
prove the circumstances on the basis of which the finding of
conviction has been recorded. They relied on Shailendra Rajdev
Pasvan and others vs. State of Gujarat - AIR 2020 SC 180 and Raja
Nayakar vs. State of Chhatirsgarh - 2024 INSC 56.
10. Heard.
11. State has supported the conviction as well as sentence and
argued that no case for interference in the conviction or sentence is
made out, hence the appeal be dismissed.
12. Perused the record.
13. The testimony of Munnalal (PW/7) working as sweeper in
Municipal Corporation, Ujjain is the person who saw the dead body
of Amarlal and immediately intimated the police station Madhav
Nagar, Ujjain at 10.30 a.m of 04.11.2001. The FIR Ex.P/7 of crime
no.666/2001 was registered and spot map Ex.P/4 was prepared by
Inspector Y.P.Singh (PW/8) at12.35 p.m. The place of incident was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
6 CRA-431-2002
identified as graveyard and recovered the blood stained and simple
soil and blood stained stone vide Ex.P/5 from the place where the
dead body of Amarlal was found. Dr.R.S.Dangarh (PW/5)
conducted the autopsy and found the incised wound of 3x1/4x1/4
inch below the mandible of left side and going to chin and incised
wound of 8x2x2 inch on neck situated upper side of thyroid
cartilage. The wound was transversed and was crossing both sides
of neck. The wound was 2 inch deep in the middle but was less
deeper on both corners. All the tissues, muscles, larynx and
fairings were cut and the injuries were antemortem and the death
was caused due to the injuries within 6 to 24 hours.
14. The testimony of Rajesh (PW/2) and Head Constable Rakesh
Narayan (PW/9) has stated that appellants were seen with deceased
Amarlal at about 9.30 to 10.30 p.m on 03.11.2001 near ITI Road,
Ujjain. The place of ITI Road, Ujjain is near the graveyard where
the body of deceased was found. Accordingly, the evidence of these
two witnesses establish that the deceased was lastly seen with the
appellants because there is no evidence that the deceased was seen
with another person after 10.30 p.m on 03.11.2001 till his body was
recovered at 8.30 a.m on 04.11.2001. The presence of Rajesh
(PW/2) and Head Constable Rakesh Narayan is natural and no
reason has been brought on record that they have any motive to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
7 CRA-431-2002
falsely implicate the appellants/accused.
15. On the strength of Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan (supra) it is
argued that mere last seen is not sufficient to convict the appellants
for the murder of Amarlal. Relevant para-16 is being quoted as
below:
16. It is well settled by now that in a case based on
circumstantial evidence the Courts ought to have a
conscientious approach and conviction ought to be
recorded only in case all the links of the chain are
complete pointing to the guilt of the accused. Each link
unless connected together to form a chain may suggest
suspicion but the same in itself cannot take place of proof
and will not be sufficient to convict the accused.
16. Appellants have relied on Raja Naykar vs. State of Chhatisgarh
- 2024 INSC 56 in support of the arguments that the recovery of
blood stained weapon and clothes cannot form the basis of
conviction. The relevant para-19 is being reproduced as under:
19. In can thus be seen that, the only circumstance that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
8 CRA-431-2002
may be of some assistance to the prosecution case is the
recovery of dagger at the instance of the present
appellant. However, as already stated hereinabove, the
said recovery is also from an open place accessible to one
and all. In any case, the blood found on the dagger does
not match with the blood group of the deceased. In the
case of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen vs. State of Rajasthan,
this Court held that sole circumstance of recovery of blood
stained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless
the same was connected with the murder of the deceased
by the accused. Thus, we find that only on the basis of
sole circumstance of recovery of blood stained weapon, it
cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its
burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
17. In the light of above arguments, we are appreciating the other
evidence available on record. Prahlad (PW/1) has stated that in the
morning of 03.11.2001 at about 12 to 12.30 p.m appellant Prakash
@ Pappu came to their house and extended the threat to his father
asserting that Rajubai whose name was not known to him but was
with him. The testimony of Bherulal (PW/6) is to the effect that
Amarlal was involved regarding Rajubai and the testimony of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
9 CRA-431-2002
Inspector Y.P Singh (PW/8) proved that a santoor, pant, shirt were
recovered vide Ex.P/11 on the information Ex.P/10 from the
backyard of the house beneath the shrubs and pant and shirt were
recovered from the box of the house of Prakash. As per Ex.P/12
those material were forwarded to FSL, Sagar and the report of FSL,
Sagar discloses that human blood was found on the shirt recovered
from Prakash @ Pappu and blood was found on dothi (D/1),
petticoat (D/2) and blouse (D/3) recovered from Rajubai and santoor
(e) recovered from Prakash @ Pappu and pant (F/1) recovered from
Prakash @ Pappu. Due to disintegration of the stains found on the
dhoti, petticoat and blouse and due to insufficiency of blood on the
santoor and pant it could not be identified that the blood was human
and further were inconclusive on the shirt recovered from Prakash.
18. Trial court has recorded the finding of completion of the chain
of circumstances on the ground that the circumstances of last seen
together is further get strengthened from the recovery of clothes
stained with human blood and non explanation of those
circumstances.
19. Now we reappreciate the testimony of Prahlad (PW/1). His
testimony discloses that no threat was extended by Rajubai. She was
only in the company with Prakash. She did not utter any word. As
per FSL report the stain found on the petticoat, dhoti and blouse
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
10 CRA-431-2002
proves only that stain of blood was present. No weapon is recovered
from Rajubai. Accordingly, test laid down in Shailendra Rajdev
Pasvan (supra) is not satisfied with regard to appellant/accused
Rajubai.
20. Now come to the case of Prakash @ Pappu. On reappreciation
of evidence, following circumstances are proved beyond reasonable
doubt against Prakash @ Pappu:
(a) appellant/accused Prakash @ Pappu was annoyed with the
deceased Amarlal because deceased Amarlal was trying to settle the
marriage of Rajubai through customary mode of Nathra whereas
Rajubai was living with Prakash @ Pappu.
(b) On 3rd of November, 2001, in the morning time, Prakash @
Pappu reached the house of Amarlal and threatened for dire
consequences if Amarlal tried to make the marriage of Rajubai
through Nathra.
(c) In the night of 3rd November, 2001, appellant Prakash was
seen with Amarlal at Udayan Marg, Ujjain.
(d) In the morning of 4th of November, 2001, the body of Amarlal
was found in the graveyard situated near the place where Amarlal
was last seen together with Prakash @ Pappu.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
11 CRA-431-2002
(e) The death of Amarlal was caused within 6 to 24 hours from the
autopsy that was conducted at 2.35 p.m of 04.11.2001.
(f) The blood stained santoor and blood stained pant, shirt were
recovered from the appellant Prakash.
(g) The blood found on the shirt recovered from Prakash was
human blood.
(h) There is no explanation regarding the presence of human blood
on the shirt recovered from Prakash and blood on the pant and
santoor recovered from Prakash.
(i) There is no injury on the person of Prakash that could justify the
presence of blood on the article recovered from Prakash @ Pappu.
(j) The time gap between last seen together and death of Amarlal is
so minimal that attracts the theory of last seen together.
(k) The body of Amarlal was found near the place where the
deceased and Amarlal were lastly seen together and the direction of
the place where the body was seen is towards that place.
(l) There is no evidence that deceased was seen with another
person between the period lastly seen together with the appellant and
death of Amarlal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
12 CRA-431-2002
(m) There is no explanation when separated from the company of
deceased Amarlal.
21. These circumstances taken together complete the chain and are
incapable of exception of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of
the appellant/accued Ramprasad. These circumstances are
inconsistent with his innocence. They exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one that Prakash @ Pappu committed the
murder of Amarlal. Accordingly, the findings of the trial court in
convicting the appellant for murder of Amarlal is based on proper
appreciation of evidence and that does not require interference.
Appellants have been convicted for both the sections i.e. 302 &
302/34 of the IPC. Accordingly, acquittal of Rajubai does not affect
the conviction of appellant Pappu @ Prakash under section 302 of
the IPC, hence his conviction under section 302 of the IPC for
committing the murder of Amarlal in the intervening night of 3rd
and 4th of November, 2001 within the jurisdiction of PS
Madhavnagar, Ujjain is affirmed. The sentence also does not require
interference.
22. In the light of above, this appeal succeeds with reference to
appellant/accused Rajubai and she is acquitted from the charge under
section 302, 302/34 of the IPC and consequently her sentence is also
set aside. She is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled and sureties
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24297
13 CRA-431-2002
are discharged.
23. The appeal filed by appellant Prakash @ Pappu fails and his
conviction under section 302 of the IPC and sentence of life
imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of 2
years simple imprisonment is affirmed. He is on bail. His bail bonds
are cancelled. Arrest warrant be issued against him to be taken in
custody for undergoing the remaining jail sentence.
24. Let copy of this judgment along with record be remitted back
to the trial court for compliance.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
