Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amol Singh @ Raju @ Lallu Chandel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANAND PATHAK &
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI HIRDESH
ON THE 21st OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3756 OF 2021
AMOL SINGH @ RAJU @ LALLU CHANDEL
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav- learned Counsel for appellant through legal aid.
Shri BPS Chauhan- learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per Justice Hirdesh:
The instant criminal appeal under Section 383 of CrPC has been filed
by appellant from jail, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 7th of August, 2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge,
Sironj, District Vidisha (MP) in Sessions Trial No.149 of 2016, whereby
appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo for Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment
of fine amount, appellant has been directed to undergo further one year's
rigorous imprisonment and on deposit of fine amount, Rs.8,000/- shall be
given jointly to the parents of deceased- Saloni as consolation compensation.
(2) Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e. 17 th of
April, 2016, Saloni with daughter of her maternal uncle - Roshni had gone to
the market in Sironj to get her anklet repaired. In market, appellant suddenly
came across Madan Mohanji Temple and inflicted knife blows on her several
times due to which, Saloni fell there and accused ran away. The incident was
witnessed by Roshni (PW-8) and nearby shopkeepers. Saloni had several
wounds in her stomach, chest and neck. Her intestines had come out. When
Saloni was taken to the hospital, the doctor declared her dead. The incident
that happened with deceased Saloni was reported to PS Sironj vide Dehati
Nalishi (Ex.P8) by complainant- Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) and a merg was
recorded. Merg was enquired. On the basis of statements of witnesses, crime
was registered against appellant. Appellant was arrested and his memorandum
was recorded. Blood stained soil and clothes of deceased were seized from
scene of crime and sent to FSL for examination. After completion of
investigation and other formalities, charge-sheet was filed by police before
the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction from where, the case was
committed to Sessions Court for trial.
(3) Charges were framed against accused under Section 302 of IPC. Trial
was conducted. During trial, appellant- accused denied having committed the
alleged crime. Ten witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution to prove
its case. Exhibited documents were also produced on behalf of prosecution.
Statement of accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded.
(4) The trial Court, after marshalling and appreciating the entire evidence
available on record, specifically evidence of Roshni (PW-8), found appellant
guilty of commission of alleged offence; and accordingly, convicted and
sentenced appellant vide impugned judgment, as stated above.
(5) Challenging the impugned judgment, learned Counsel for appellant
submits that Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) and Roshni (PW-8) are relatives of the
deceased, so they are interested witnesses and there are so many
contradictions and omissions in their Court statements as well as in their
statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. Although Mukesh (PW-1)
and Ballu Sen (PW-7) have been examined by prosecution, but from their
evidence, it is not clear about presence of appellant at the time of commission
of alleged offence. Madanlal Sharma (PW-3) has not identified accused, who
in his evidence stated that he had seen appellant from behind, who was going
towards market saying that '' no one can cheat Raju''. It is further contended
that human blood group was not matched with clothes of appellant according
to FSL report and the so-called deadly weapon knife was not recovered on the
basis of memorandum of accused. Therefore, prosecution story appears to be
doubtful. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.
(6) On the other hand, learned Counsel for State by supporting the
impugned judgment, submits that Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) and Roshni (PW-8)
are the eye-witnesses of the incident and they have fully supported
prosecution version. Human blood was found on clothes of appellant which
were recovered on the basis of his memorandum. Madanlal Sharma (PW-3) in
his examination-in-chief deposed that he had seen appellant from behind, who
was going towards market saying that ''no one can cheat Raju'' and further in
Para 02 of his cross-examination, Madanlal Sharma deposed that when
appellant-accused was going, he saw that blood was falling from his hand.
Prosecution has rightly established appellant guilty of commission of murder
of deceased after appreciating the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses
and material available on record. There being no infirmity in the impugned
judgment and the findings arrived at by the Trial Court do not require any
interference by this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
(7) Heard counsel for parties at length and perused the record.
(8) The first question comes before this Court is as to whether the cause of
death of deceased was homicidal in nature or not?
(9) Dr. Suresh Agrawal (PW-2) in his evidence deposed that on 17-04-2016
he was posted as Medical Officer in Rajiv Gandhi Smriti Hospital, Sironj.
Deceased Saloni was brought by Constable Gajraj Singh for postmortem. The
dead body of deceased was identified by her brothers and uncle. On external
examination, he found following injuries on the person of deceased:-
''1. One wound was 1 inch long and half inch wide and penetrating
completely through the skin and was spindle shaped i.e. wide in the
middle and pointed on both sides; this wound was in the middle of
left cheek
2. An incised wound 3/4 inch long, 1/2 inch wide and skin deep,
located on the front side just below the left shoulder joint.
3. A incised wound 1 inch long, half inch wide at the lower end of
the throat penetrating windpipe and extending deep up to the food
pipe.
4. Two incised wounds each measuring 1 inch long, half inch wide
and skin deep extending just below the chin.
5. Two incised wounds each measuring 3/4 inch long, 1/2 inch wide
and deep to windpipe, this injury was on the right side of neck.
6. A incised wound 3/4 inch long, 1/2 inch wide, skin deep in the
epidestric region of the abdomen.
7. Two incised wounds each measuring half inch by half inch and
deep to the depth of the skin were on the anterior side of the
abdominal wall.
8. Five incised wounds, each measuring one and a quarter inch
long, half inch wide penetrating the entire abdominal wall
occupying one third of the anterior abdominal wall.
9. Two penetrating wounds, each measuring 3½ inches long and 1½
inches wide, which had penetrated the entire abdominal wall and
also penetrated the small intestine and a loop of small intestine had
come out through the wounds.
10. A cut wound measuring one and a quarter inch long, half inch
wide, deep to the depth of the skin, located in the right armpit at the
height of the nipple.
On internal examination, Dr. Agrawal found following injuries on the
person of deceased:-
'' Lungs, windpipe, both lungs, perineal perforation, heart and
large vessels were damaged, lower windpipe had perforated
wounds filled with bone fragments and blood, chambers on left
side of his heart were empty, chambers on right side contained
blood, intestinal membranes, oesophagus, stomach, small
intestine, large intestine, liver, gallbladder, kidney and urinary
bladder were pale, intestines had come out from wound in
stomach, stomach was filled with blood, stomach was pierced at
two places and food particles were coming out from them, small
intestine was pierced at several places and was coming out from
wound in stomach and external genitals were normal.
According to opinion of doctor, all the injuries mentioned above were
antemortem and appeared to have been caused by hard and sharp object,
which was within six hours prior to autopsy. Postmortem report is Ex.P1.
Mode of death is syncope due to massive haemorrhage and shock caused by
multiple injuries. Injuries found on the body of deceased were sufficient to
cause the death.
(10) Considering the medical evidence, specifically statement of Dr. Suresh
Agrawal (PW-2) and other witnesses, it is clear that death of deceased was
caused by hard and sharp object and bleeding from multiple injuries on the
body of deceased, excessive bleeding and shock leading to syncope. The
death of deceased was found to have occurred within six hours of
postmortem examination. The injuries found on the body of deceased were
sufficient to cause her death.
(11) The next question comes before this Court is as to whether appellant
with intention caused multiple injuries by means of knife on the deceased
leading to her death or not ?
(12) Uncle of deceased Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) in his evidence deposed that
the incident was happened on 17-04-2016 around 02:00 pm. On the date of
incident, deceased Saloni had gone to market with her maternal uncle's
daughter Roshni to get her anklets repaired. When they did not return from
market for a long time, he went to market and found both Saloni and Roshni
near Peepal tree in market. Saloni told him that Raju (appellant) is following
her. This witness further deposed that near Madan Mohanji Temple, suddenly
appellant came from behind and started attacking Saloni with a knife several
times, due to which, Saloni fell down after getting hurt. This witness in Para 2
deposed that when he tried to catch appellant, appellant ran away. He followed
him, but appellant could not be caught. Shopkeepers nearby also saw the
accused running. This witness further deposed that when he came to Saloni, he
found a lot of injuries on her stomach, neck and body. Her intestines had come
out. He picked Saloni up and brought her to hospital, where the doctor
declared her dead. This witness in Para 3 of his cross-examination deposed
that two-three years ago, accused came to his house and created a ruckus and
rang the door due to which, they took him to police station and got him locked
up and since then, he has known him. This witness in Para 9 of his cross-
examination deposed that when he was returning home with Saloni, he was
walking ahead of Saloni and Saloni was walking behind him. This witness
further in Para 12 of his cross-examination denied that after death of Saloni,
her dead body was lying on spot for 2-3 hours. This witness in Para 14 of his
cross-examination deposed that Roshni and auto driver were with them in
bringing Saloni from scene of occurrence to hospital. This witness in Para 16
of his cross-examination also admitted that on the date of incident, police had
interrogated Roshni and denied that he had any previous enmity with accused.
(13) The material witness in the presence case i.e. Roshi (PW-8) who is the
daughter of maternal uncle of deceased Roshni, in her examination-in-chief
deposed that she had gone to the market with her sister Roshni to get anklets
repaired. Accused started asking her sister Saloni why she did not pick up his
phone. Her sister said the accused not to call her again and again and she
cannot marry him without her father's consent. She and her sister Saloni
moved towards their home and when they reached near the Temple, accused
caught her sister from behind and stabbed her in stomach, chest and neck with
a knife due to which, her sister fell there. Accused was saying to her sister
that ''if you do not become mine, I will not let you become anyone else''.
(14) The next contention of learned Counsel for appellant is that
complainant Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) and Roshni (PW-8) are the relatives of
deceased, so they are interested witnesses. There are contradictions and
omissions in their Court statements and in their statements recorded under
Section 161 of CrPC.
(15) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Singh vs. Mahaveer
Singh (2017) 11 SCC 195 has held as under:-
''29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies
are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be
considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test
is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the
Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by
the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the
prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the
root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can
take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special
emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a
material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions,
inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect
the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a
ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should
create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or
creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious
contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case
of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission.
(See Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC
649; Leela Ram (dead) through Duli Chand Vs. State of
Haryana and Another, (1999) 9 SCC 525; Bihari Nath
Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 186;
Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC
191; Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri,
(2012) 4 SCC 124; Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal,
(2012) 7 SCC 646 and Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti
Biswas and Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 796).
(16) Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taqdir Samsuddin
Sheikh Vs. State of Gujrat & Another, 2011(10) SCC 158 has held as
under:-
"9. We are of the view that all omissions/contradictions pointed
out by the appellants' counsel had been trivial in nature, which
do not go to the root of the cause. It is settled legal proposition
that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into
consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions/
improvements/ embellishments etc. had been of such
magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor
contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on
trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution
should not be made the court to reject the evidence in its
entirety. The court after going through the entire evidence must
form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the
appellate court in natural course would not be justified in
reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide:
Sunil 8 Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) & Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657)."
(17) So far as the contention of learned Counsel for appellant that Rajendra
Kumar (PW-5) and Roshni (PW-8) are the relatives of deceased and their
evidence cannot be believed is concerned, it is well-settled principle of law
that a witness, who is a relative of deceased or victim or a crime cannot be
characterized as ''interested witness''. Close relationship of witness or victim is
no ground to reject his evidence.
(18) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Shamim vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2018) 10 SCC 509 has held as under:-
''9. In a criminal trial, normally the evidence of the wife,
husband, son or daughter or the deceased, is given great
weight-age on the principle that there is no reason for them not
to speak the truth and shield the real culprit.''
(19) Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rizan vs. State of
Chhattisgarh (2003) 2 SCC 661 has held as under:-
''6. We shall first deal with the contention regarding
interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution
version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a
witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not
conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent
person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is
made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach
and analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and
credible.''
7. In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR
(1953) SC 364 it has been laid down as under:-
"26. A witness is normally to be considered independent
unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to
be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has
cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be
the last to screen the real culorit and falsely implicate an
innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and
there is personal cause for enmity, there is a tendency to
drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a
grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid
for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far
from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.
However, we are not attempting any sweeping
generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts.
Our observations are only mads to combat what is so
often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of
prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must
be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
8. The above decision has since been followed in Guli
Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, [1974] 3 SCC 698 in
which Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC
614 was also relied upon.
9. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a
close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should
not be relied upon has no substance. This theory was repelled by
this Court as early as in Dalip Singh's case supra in which
surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in
the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not
independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose. J. it was
observed:
"25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of
the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses
requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an
observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are
women and that the fate of even men hangs on their
testimony, we know of such rule. If it is grounded on the
reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are
unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many
criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court
endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR (1957) SC 54 at p.59). We find, however,
that the unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments
of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."
10. Again in Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P..AIR (1965) SC
202 this Court observed; 202-210 para 14;
"But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend
that evidence given by witnesses should be
discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of
partisan or interested witnesses.......The mechanical
rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it
is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice.
No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how
much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial
approach has to be cautions in dealing with such
evidence: put the plea that such evidence should be
rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as
correct."
11. To the same effect is the decision in State of
Punjab v. Jagir Singh, AIR (1973) SC 2407 and Lebna
v. State of Haryana, [2002] 3 SCC 76.
(20) Thus, if a witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused
punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and has a strong motive to
falsely implicate the accused, then he would be called an ''interested witness''.
But, from evidence of Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) and Roshni (PW-8), nothing
reveals from their motive to falsely implicate accused and their evidence
substantially unrebutted in their cross-examination, therefore, their evidence
could not be discarded merely because they are the relative witnesses of
deceased.
(21) Further contention of learned Counsel for appellant is that from the
evidence of Mukesh (PW-1), Ballu Sen (PW-7) and Madanlal Sharma (PW-3),
it is not clear about the presence of accused at the time of alleged incident.
No blood group was matched with the clothes of appellant recovered from his
possession.
(22) From the evidence of Mechanic Mukesh (PW-1), who used to work in
his auto-part shop and Ballu Sen (PW-7), who used to run a handcart, it was
found that accused was roaming before the incident at around 10:00-11:00 am
in Sironj market. Madanlal Sharma (PW-3) in his evidence deposed that he
had seen accused from behind who was going towards the market saying ''no
one can cheat Raju'' and later, he came to know that a girl aged 17-18 years
was murdered. Appellant was arrested within three hours. In Para-2 of his
cross-examination, Madanlal Sharma further deposed that blood was coming
out from the hand of accused. If a witness could not notice some part of the
incident, then his evidence cannot be totally disbelieved. Further, from arrest
memo (Ex.P6) of accused, his physical condition was found proved that there
was blood on his right cheek. Roshni (PW-8), daughter of maternal uncle of
deceased also in Para 2 of her statement deposed that she was present at the
scene of occurrence along with deceased and her evidence is also supported
by complainant - Rajendra Kumar (PW-5). Seizure witnesses Hargovind (PW-
6) and Shaki (PW-4) have also proved arrest memo (Ex.P6) of accused.
(23) It is true that human blood was found on the clothes recovered from the
possession of appellant- accused, but according to the FSL report, it was
inconclusive in regard to classification of blood group, but appellant has
failed to prove as to why and how human blood was found on the clothes
recovered from him. So, merely blood group was not matched, does not give
any benefit to the appellant. It is also need to mention here that this case is
based on eye-witnesses account and not based on circumstantial evidence. So,
no classification of blood group does not give benefit to accused.
(24) On perusal of medical evidence, it was found that appellant had
inflicted multiple repeated blows with a sharp-edged weapon (knife) on the
deceased Saloni in front of witness Roshni (PW-8) on the vital part of
deceased and the injuries sustained by deceased were sufficient to cause her
death. The modus operandi of accused also reflects that he had committed the
alleged offence. It is proved beyond shadow of doubt that deceased was
murdered and the prosecution has rightly established beyond reasonable doubt
the intention of accused to cause death of deceased.
(25) In the light of foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion
that the learned trial Court has properly and legally analyzed and appreciated
the entire evidence available on record and did not err in convicting and
sentencing appellant. The learned trial Court has rightly found appellant-
accused guilty of committing murder of Saloni (deceased) and accordingly,
convicted and sentenced him for offence under Section 302 of IPC.
(26) Appeal filed by appellant from jail appears to be devoid of any
substance and is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence is affirmed. Appellant is in jail. He be intimated with
the result of this appeal through Jail Superintendent concerned.
(27) With a copy of this judgment, let record of the trial Court be sent back
immediately.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
