Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Alies Raja Morey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5659
1 CRA-5185-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5185 of 2018
RAJENDRA ALIES RAJA MOREY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ram Suphal Verma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Shri Ram Suphal Verma does not want to press I.A. No.27614/2023, which
is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.27614/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. With the consent of the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal
in motion hearing.
4. This appeal has been filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 28.06.2018
passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Session Case
No.311/2017 whereby learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under
Section 302 of IPC with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default
stipulation of R.I. for 3 months.
5. It is submitted that appellant is innocent. It is a case of accidental fall of
the deceased Ranu Morey, wife of appellant, which has been given a colour of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5659
2 CRA-5185-2018
homicidal death.
6. Reading from the evidence of real sister (PW-5) of deceased, it is pointed
out that in paragraph 3 this witness deposed that Ranu had visited her mother's
house in presence of this witness Smita Mishra at about 8:00 am - 8:30 am and
had asked her to finish her work expeditiously because they wanted to go to
market. This witness also stated that on the same day her younger sister along with
her husband had come to her parents house when Ranu had invited them for dinner
to her house. Thereafter, she had gone to her house. At about 9:00 - 9:30 am a boy
had come and had informed them that Ranu was lying on the road probably she
had fallen from the terrace. Thereafter, this witness (PW-5) and her two younger
sisters reached on the spot and found Ranu lying on the road in a blood pool.
7. In paragraph 17 in cross examination this witness has admitted that
appellant had taken her sister to Sharda hospital and from there to J K Hospital
and all the treatment was carried out at the instance of appellant and his parents.
8. Reading from the evidence of prosecution witness Radhe (PW-10) who
has neither been declared hostile nor there is any contradiction in his evidence, it
is pointed out that Radhe has stated that on the date of the incident he was standing
at a tea stall. Akhilesh Rao and accused were also standing at the tea stall. When
they were standing at the tea stall they had seen that in the block opposite of the
tea stall a women namely Ranu in the attempt to dry her clothes in the balcony had
fallen down and that lady was taken to the hospital in an auto by the accused and
two-three other persons. Thus, in view of this statement of eye witness Radhe it is
pointed out that conviction under Section 302 of IPC on the four circumstances
which have been narrated by learned sessions Judge in paragraph nos.30, 31, 32
and 33 are not made out. Thus, it is submitted that it is a fit case of acquittal and
conviction is liable to be set-aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5659
3 CRA-5185-2018
9. Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn, submits that
trial Court has considered first circumstance as deceased visiting her mother's
house at about 9:30 am on 04.12.2016 and narrating incident of marpeet with her
by the accused.
10. Second circumstance which has come on record is that sister of
deceased namely Smita (PW-5) had reached the place of the incident and had seen
the deceased in an injured condition. Third circumstance which has been taken
into consideration is that though accused was present at the place of the incident,
but he had not made any attempts to take her to the hospital and, on the other
hand, he had interfered in the attempts of others who were present at the place of
the incident to take her to hospital.
11. Fourth circumstance has been taken to be the injuries which have been
narrated by the doctor who conducted post mortem and on the basis of such four
circumstances conviction has been recorded. Thus, placing reliance on such four
circumstances, it is pointed out that the conviction is liable to be maintained.
12. Law in regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence is crystal clear
as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxman Prasad @ Laxman Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023) 6 SCC 399 .
13. It is settled principle of law that all the links of a chain of circumstances
should be completed. There should not be any missing link. In the present case,
first two circumstances can be culled out from the evidence of Smita Mishra (PW-
5). PW-5 has stated that when deceased had visited her mother's house in presence
of this witness, then she was happy, she asked her to finish her work early because
they wanted to go to market and then she had extended invitation for dinner to not
only this witness, but to her younger sister and her husband who were also visiting
the house of her mother. Thus, first circumstance is not made out from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5659
4 CRA-5185-2018
evidence of PW-5.
14. Second circumstance is correct that when Smita Mishra (PW-5) reached
the place of the incident, she had seen the deceased in an injured condition. But,
third circumstance is not made out in the light of the evidence of Radhe (PW-10)
and admission in paragraph no.17 of the cross-examination of this witness (PW-5)
that appellant either did not make any attempt to take the injured to the hospital or
obstructed attempts of others to take her to the hospital, being contradicted even
by the FIR (Ex.P/18), which mentions that the lady who had fallen down from the
roof was taken to the hospital by her husband.
15. It has also come on record that when injured was taken to hospital her
statements could not be recorded because her condition was not such to permit
recording of statements. Opinion of Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-13) is not clear on
the aspect as to whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. In paragraph no.8
this doctor has admitted that police had not made any query nor had produced any
danda for examination as to whether such injuries could have been caused with
a danda or not. Thus, it is evident that chain of circumstances are not complete.
16. Thus, when the facts of the case are examined in the light of the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxman Prasad ( Supra) then it is held
that in case of circumstantial evidence chain has to be complete in all respects so
as to indicate guilt of accused and also exclude any other theory of crime. This is
well settled from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116
and when these judgments of Supreme Court are taken into consideration, then
since chain of circumstances are not clear and the chain of circumstances also do
not indicate towards the guilt of the accused and other theory cannot be excluded
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5659
5 CRA-5185-2018
and we are pained to see that the trial Court had even not bothered to frame a
charge under Section 306 of IPC, the conviction of the appellant under Section
302 of IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for want of completion of chain
of circumstances.
17. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and impugned judgment of
conviction is set-aside. Appellant, if not required in any other case, be released
forthwith.
18. Case property be destroyed as per the orders of the trial Court.
19. Record along with copy of the judgment be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pnm
