Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 19 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4493
1 CRA-872-2001
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. 872 of 2001
VIRENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Bheemsen Soni- Advocate for the appellant (through Legal Aid).
Shri H.S. Rathore - Government Advocate for the respondents State.
Reserved on :- 27.01.2025
Posted on :- 19.02.2025
...............................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
This Criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure
Code is preferred challenging the conviction under Section 302 and 201 of
the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and four years rigorous
imprisonment to run concurrently vide judgment dated 02.08.2001 in
Sessions Case No. 67/97 by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Biaora.
2. Facts in brief are that appellant accused Virendrasingh was
prosecuted under Section 302 and 201 of IPC for committing the murder of
Phoolsingh Meena in the intervening night of 13-14th December, 1996 at the
Bank of Chhapi Dam of Zeerapur, District Rajgarh and disposing his body
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4493
2 CRA-872-2001
with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment.
3. The enforcement agency i.e. Police Station, Zeerapur, District
Rajgarh came into motion on the information of Mangilal, Sarpanch of
Panchayat Bamankheda that on 14.12.96 at 08:30 AM (Exhibit-P-1) one
unknown dead body is lying naked with injuries on head and a stone is also
lying nearby. Merg No. 41 of 1996 was registered. Dead body was
forwarded for autopsy. The body was identified as Phoolsingh Meena S/o
Nandram Meena, R/o Dhakariyapura vide Exhibit-P-22 on 18.12.1996 with
the help of photograph and the ring worn by the deceased. During the inquiry
the involvement of appellant accused came in light and Crime No. 279 of
1996 was registered against the appellant accused on 19.12.1996. The
appellant accused was taken into custody on 27.12.1996 vide Exhibit-P-18.
Memorandum of information Exhibit-P-14 was prepared on 18.12.1996 and
one pant, one shoe of left leg and sweater was recovered from the river
bridge of Chappi vide Exhibit-P-19 and quilt was recovered which was
hidden between the bushes of Chappi Dam vide Exhibit-P-20. Properties
were forwarded to FSL, Gwalior. Statements of witnesses were recorded
and final report was submitted.
4. Appellant accused abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
5. To bring home the guilt prosecution examined as many as 22
witnesses including Mangilal as PW-1, Kuwarlal S/o Nandram as PW-2,
Jasrath Singh as PW-3, Kanwarlal, S/o Mangilal as PW-4, Laxminarayan as
PW-5, Premsingh as PW-6, Assistant Surgeon Doctor C.M. Tripathi as
PW-7, Gopal Sinhare as PW-8, Jaganath as PW-9, Patwari Shivlal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4493
3 CRA-872-2001
Chourasiya as PW-10, Gaffar Khan as PW-11, Medical Officer Dr S.K.
Bansal, Civil Hospital, Biaro as PW-12, Phoolsingh, S/o Chhotelal as PW-
13, Chandsha as PW-14, Jagganath as PW-15, Sunil Sharma as PW-16,
Rakesh Kumar Sharma as PW-17, Ramcharan Gotti as PW-18, Assistant
Surgeon Doctor R.S. Saini as PW-19, Veerpal Singh as PW-20, Sub-
Inspector Hemant Singh Sisodiya as PW-21 and Bhajan Singh as PW-22.
6. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the appellant
accused denied almost all the facts appeared against him as evidence and
explained that on the fateful day Phoolsingh was driving vehicle (jeep) in
which seven passengers were boarded and jeep overturned and all persons
sustained injuries and all persons including Phoolsingh sustained injuries in
his hands legs and chest. He took Phoolsingh to Hospital, Biaora, but the
concerned Doctors denied to treat the Phoolsingh without lodging the FIR.
Till time, the partner in the ownership of jeep namely Sahoo came to the
Government Hospital, Biaora with two companions. He intimated the Sahoo
and went to Pratap Narayan Tripathi, Biaora. When he returned with Pratap
Narayan Tripathi then neither Phoolsingh nor jeep was available in the
Hospital, Biaora. He thereafter returned to his home at Biaora. He moved to
participate in a marriage ceremony and when he was returning to Biaora after
marriage ceremony then jeep was seized at Police station Khujneer because
the driver of the jeep did not possess the documents of the jeep. He
committed no offence. He examined Pratap Narayan Tripathi as DW-1,
Roopsingh as DW-2 and Shivnath Singh as DW-3 in his defense.
7. Appreciating the evidence, trial Court found prove beyond
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4493
4 CRA-872-2001
reasonable doubt the circumstances as mentioned in Paragraph-21 of the
judgment that :-
"a. On 13.12.1996, the appellant accused was
driving the jeep vehicle bearing No. MP04 F 157 and at
08:00 PM he overturned the jeep vehicle at Biaora road
near Khanpura in which Phoolsingh sustained injury in
his leg. The appellant accused took the Phoolsingh and
left the place of incident with assertion that he is taking
the Phoolsingh to Hospital, Biaora. On the way he
obtained a quilt from Barrier No.3, Biaora from Rakesh
Kumar, PW-17. On 14-12-1996 jeep vehicle bearing
No. MP04 F 157 was recovered from the appellant
accused. This seized jeep vehicle No. MP04 F 157
caused the incident in which Phoolsingh sustained
injuries. Quilt, pant, a shoe and sweater were recovered
on the information (Exhibit-P-14) as per seizure P-19
and P-20. Rakesh Kumar (PW-17) identified the quilt.
b. Bajansingh (PW-22) identified the pant,
shoe and sweater recovered as per P-19 and P-20
belongs to Phoolsingh.
c. The injury found on head of Phoolsingh
discloses that his brain material was came out of skull
and the injury was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause
death."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4493
5 CRA-872-2001
8. On the basis of those proved circumstances, the trial Court came
to the conclusion that the appellant accused caused the murder of
Phoolsingh in the intervening night of 13-14.12.1996 by inflicting the injury
on the head of the Phoolsingh. The murder of the Phoolsingh was
committed to escape from the punishment of offence of accident and
appellant/accused hide the clothes and quilt so that the body could not be
identified and to screen himself from the crime and found to prove the guilt
of the appellant accused under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC.
9. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been
preferred on the ground that trial Court was wrong in believing and
discarding the defense version. Trial Court was wrong in drawing
unwarranted inferences. Trial Court was wrong in not considering the
material omissions and contradictions in the statement of prosecution
witnesses.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Counsel for the State has opposed the appeal submitting that trial
Court has found proved all the circumstances beyond the reasonable doubt
and the proved circumstances completed the chain of circumstances to
establish the offence of murder and the offence falls within the purview of
Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. Hence the appeal be dismissed.
12. Perused the record.
13. Dr C.M. Tripathi (PW-7) was posted at Primary Health Centre,
Zeerapur on 14.12.1996 and he conducted the autopsy of un-known body
brought by Police Constable Ramprasad No. 568 Zeerapur. He started the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4493
6 CRA-872-2001
autopsy at 02:00 PM on 14.12.1996 and found a crushed wound on the head
of the body due to which the brain matter was ruptured and fracture of skull
and mandible was present. There were sign of friction on the left side of the
chest. The 1- 3 ribs of the left side and cervical bone were found fracture.
There were fracture on tibia and fibula of left side. All the injuries were
ante-mortem and he opined that the nature of injury may be homicidal or
may be accidental.
14. Sunil Sharma (PW-16), , Jasrath Singh (PW-3), Kanwarlal (PW-
4) has stated that they were also travelling in the jeep that overturned to save
the cattle, one person, namely, Phoolsingh pressed under the jeep. All the
person have expressed ignorance regarding Phoolsingh after the incident
stating that appellant accused has stated that he is taking the Phoolsingh to
Hospital. Sunil Sharma (PW-16) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (PW-17)
discloses that appellant accused took a quilt about 9-10 PM from the toll tax
barrier No.3 apprising that quilt is required for Phoolsingh, who got injured
in accident. Phoolsingh insisted for treatment through 'desi' methods of
'banna' of Vishwanath Colony, Biaora . Sunil Sharma (PW-16) went to
search the 'banna' and when he returned then appellant accused moved from
that place in jeep towards Biaora city. So it is proved that on the night of 9-
10 PM of 13.12.1996 the deceased Phoolsingh was with the Virendra Singh
and the dead body of the Phoolsingh was found in naked condition on the
boundary of Chhapi Dam.
15. The explanation of the appellant accused has been discarded by
the trial Court that he took the Phoolsingh to Civil Hospital, Biaora, but they
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4493
7 CRA-872-2001
denied to start the treatment without lodging the FIR and at that time one
Sahu came to whom he intimated the incident and went to call the Pratap
Narayan Tripathi, Biaoro, but Phoolsingh and jeep was not in the hospital.
16. Kamalnath (PW-2) is the brother of the Phoolsingh, who stated
that his brother Phoolsingh was a driver by profession and he was engaged in
driving the jeep of one Sahu resident of Biaora. Another brother of
Phoolsingh i.e. Bhajansingh (PW-20) also stated that Phoolsingh purchase
the jeep with one Sahu resident of Biaora and was driving the jeep which was
possessed with Sahu. In Paragraph-5 this witness has stated that he has seen
the photo of his brother Phoolsingh in which the wheel of the jeep crushed
the face of Phoolsingh. This witness has improved the statement that at the
time of incident Phoolsingh was going to pay the amount of Rs. 40,000-
50,000/- regarding the consideration of jeep. This theory is not part of the
prosecution case.
17. Retired Assistant Superintendent of Land District Rajgarh
Pratapsingh (DW-1) has stated that at about 09:00 PM of 13.12.1999 the
appellant accused came to his home and told that Doctors are not treating the
Phoolsingh and are insisting to lodge FIR. He came to the Hospital with
accused, but neither jeep nor Phoolsingh was in the Hospital then they moved
to Police station, but they were informed that no jeep came to Police station.
18. Trial Court has rejected the explanation recording the reasons
that appellant accused has not lodged the report of accident. The findings of
the trial Court is that the jeep vehicle bearing No. MP04 F 157 belongs to
Parvinder Singh, resident of Biaora and it is not proved that he got the jeep
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4493
8 CRA-872-2001
on rent from Parvinder Singh. Trial Court also rejected the explanation on
the ground that appellant accused has not examined Sahu in his defense and
it is the un-natural conduct of the appellant accused and demonstrates the
motive of the appellant accused.
19. The reasoning that the appellant accused has failed to lodge the
first information report and has not examined the Sahu does not exonerate
the prosecution to discharge the primary burden of proving the case beyond
reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if
believed, will sustained the conviction. The circumstances as brought and
proved by the prosecution on record clearly demonstrates that at the time of
accident seven persons were in the jeep and in the incident Phoolsingh also
sustained physical injury and appellant accused moved to Biaora and taken a
quilt at barrier No.3 of the Toll tax from Rakesh for Phoolsingh and
thereafter he moved to the Civil Hospital, Biaora. Thereafter, the naked
body with crush injury was found on the 'pal' of Chhipa dam and for the
interval period the explanation of the appellant accused that he took him to
the Civil Hospital, Biaora and Phoolsingh was not treated without lodging
FIR then one Sahu came in the Hospital and he went to call the Pratap
Narayan Tripathi,(DW-1) is proved by DW-1. There is no reason to
disbelieve Pratap Narayan Tripathi,(DW-1) as he is neither related to anyone
nor it is brought on record that he have any interest in screening the appellant
accused from the punishment. The motive that appellant accused committed
murder only to avoid himself from lodging FIR of accident is not believable
because the incident of the accident was occurred in the presence of other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4493
9 CRA-872-2001
persons, who also sustained injuries.
20. In the light of the above discussion, merely on the basis that
appellant accused has taken the deceased Phoolsingh towards Biaora in jeep
and a jeep overturned in which Phoolsingh sustained injuries and to save
himself from the prosecution of incident of accident and quilt and one shoe
of left leg and sweater was recovered on the information of the appellant
accused does not complete the chain of circumstances from which the
conclusion can be drawn that within all human probability it is the appellant
accused, who had committed the crime and further, cumulatively, they
exclude every possible hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the
appellant accused. Circumstances of last seen was inconclusive and in our
view trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant accused.
21. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant accused under
Section 302 and 201 of the IPC cannot be sustained. Hence, this appeal is
allowed and conviction and sentence of the appellant accused under Section
302 and 201 of the IPC is set aside. His bail bonds stands discharged.
22. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this
judgment.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
rashmi
