Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santlal Kushram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 July, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34486
1 CRA-4052-2024
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 28th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4052 of 2024
SANTLAL KUSHRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Arun Kumar Vishwakarma- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
ORDER
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
This Appeal is heard and reserved for judgment on 23.07.2025.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw I.A.
No.15729/2025, which is first application under Section 430 of B.N.S.S.
(under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence
and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 15729/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this appeal is
finally heard and disposed as below:-
1. This appeal is by the appellant Santlal Kushram. The appellant is
aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03/08/2023 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niwas, District -Mandla in Special
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34486
2 CRA-4052-2024
Case No.91/2019 [State of M.P. through Arakshi Kendra Vs. Santlal
Kushram] whereby appellant Santlal Kushram has been convicted and
sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
R.I. for one
302 I.P.C. R.I. for life Rs.5000/- year
R.I. for 7 R.I. for 6
201 I.P.C. Rs.2,000/-
years months
2 . In short, as per the Judgment the prosecution case is that on
10.08.2019 husband (Antram deceased) of complainant Premwati (PW/4)
had gone to the Village for work, at about 8:00 pm he came in a drunk
position and when deceased Antram was asked by his wife Premwati (PW/4)
to have dinner he said that after some time he will have dinner and while
deceased Antram was going to his room his foot got stuck in the door and he
fell down straight on the edge of bed due to which he got injury on his head
and started bleeding then his son Santlal (appellant) and his daughter in-law
Rajkumari (PW/3) tied a cloth on Antram's head and gave him first aid, her
husband was unable to speak, due to it being night and for lack of resources
they could not take him for treatment to doctor then Santlal called nephew
Kripal (PW/2) and by the time Kripal came to home, Antram had already
died. Therefore, Information was given to Kotwar Ramiya Bai (PW/9) and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34486
3 CRA-4052-2024
on information of Premwati (PW/4) Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P/8) was
registered. Police prepared Dead Body Panchnama (Ex./P5) on 11.09.2019.
Body was sent for postmortem. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After
the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) in which cause of death was mentioned as
homicidal in nature due to fracture on head. FIR (Ex.P/22) Crime
No.83/2014 was registered under Sections 302, 201 of IPC.
3. After completing the investigation police filed charge-sheet. Matter
was committed to Sessions Court for trial. The learned Trial Court charged
the accused under Sections 302, 201 of IPC. He denied the charges. After
prosecution evidence the accused further stated in examination under Section
313 of Cr.P.C that he is innocent and has not given any defence evidence.
4. Against the conviction and sentence as per Para 1 of the judgment
the grounds of appeal are that accused is innocent. He has been falsely
implicated by the police. Evidence of prosecution is full of contradictions
and omissions. PW/1 to PW/9 have not supported the prosecution case.
Seizure of Mathani (wooden stick) by (Ex.P/16) is doubtful therefore it is a
case of acquittal.
5. On the other hand, learned government counsel submits that
judgment of the trial Court is well-reasoned. Hence, appeal should be
dismissed.
6. Considered the argument. Perused the record. The accused in this
case i.e. Santlal is real son of the deceased Antram. Police has seized the
wooden Stick which is used for churning the curd from appellant/accused
Santlal. On his memorandum under Section 27 of Evidence Act (Ex.P15)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34486
4 CRA-4052-2024
and by seizure memo (Ex.P16). As per postmortem report (Ex.P/14)
conducted by Dr. Gourav Tripathi (PW/7), the death of deceased Antram
was due to excessive hemorrhage caused due to fracture on the head and
shock and he opined that it was homicidal death. As per query report
(Ex.P/14) the injury on the head of the deceased could be caused by the
seized Mathani (Wooden Stick)- Article A-6.
7. PW/1 Fatteh Singh Maravi, PW/3 Rajkumari, PW/4 Premwati,
PW/5 Punnulal, PW/6 Uday Singh have turned hostile. PW/8 Gulab Singh
Warkade who is the witness to the seizure memo (Ex.P/16) and
memorandum under Sections 27 (Ex.P/15), and PW/9 Raniya Bai Kotwar
has supported the prosecution case regarding seizure of wooden Mathani
from the possession of the accused.
8. PW/11 Amit Bhabor, Police Investigation Officer has given
evidence regarding the investigation in the case including the evidence under
Section 27 of Evidence Act (Ex.P15) and Seizure of wooden Stick (Mathani)
by memo in Exhibit P/16 bearing blood stain as per Para 9, but in Para 14 of
cross-examination he has stated that he seized Wooden Stick by Memo
Ex.P/16 but did not send the same Mathani for chemical examination
because further investigation was done by a different police officer.
9. On considering the matter and perusal of record, we find that there
is FSL report in this case which has not been brought on record, therefore, it
cannot be held conclusively that wooden Mathani seized from the appellant
accused contained any blood of human origin. This evidence was vital. There
is no direct evidence in this case. It is a case based on the circumstantial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34486
5 CRA-4052-2024
evidence and extra judicial confession. If prosecution story is considered
then at the time of incident there were three persons in the house where the
father of the accused (deceased Antram) died due to head injury and they
were Rajkumari Bai (PW/3) wife of the accused and wife of the deceased
Premwati (PW/4) in the house and the Mathani which has been trumpeted as
a weapon of assault is used for churning the butter out of the curd in homes
and is basically used by ladies in the house. PW/1 Fatteh Singh Maravi,
when this witness was declared hostile in leading question in Para 5, has
stated that Kripal (PW/2) told him that accused had hit his father by the
Mathani (wooden stick). PW/2 Kripal Singh is also declared hostile by
prosecution and in leading question Para 6 has stated that accused told him
that he has committed the wrong and in Para 7 stated that accused told him
that father Antram used to abuse him therefore he got angry and he hit him
by wooden Mathani (Stick) on head of the deceased Antram and due to
which he died. In cross-examination Para 11 this witness stated that it is
correct to say that accused Santlal did not state any fact about assaulting
Anantram at his home and in Para 12 again states that it is correct to say that
Santlal never stated before him that he hit deceased Antram by Lathi but the
learned trial Court has used this evidence as extra judicial confession in
judgment without going through the entire evidence in proper perspective.
10. It is also seen that while PW/11 Investigation Officer Amit
Bhabhore, TI in Para 14 has stated that he has not sent the wooden stick
seized from the accused to FSL for examination as further investigation was
done by another officer, but there is no statement of another police officer. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34486
6 CRA-4052-2024
fact in this case FSL report SL. No.644/19 dated 06.09.2019 is attached with
the record which shows that regarding the wooden stick seized from the
accused Santlal as Article 'A' there was human blood but accused/appellant
was not confronted with this piece of evidence, therefore, even after getting
the wooden stick seized from accused, and chemically examined, the
prosecution neither exhibited this document nor any question were asked in
this regard under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.. Therefore this causes dent in the
version of the prosecution story and this is important because PW/2 Kripal in
Para 12 has turned hostile and stated that accused Santlal never stated to him
regarding hitting the deceased Antram by Lathi (Wooden stick). Therefore,
story of Extra Judicial Confession which in any case is very weak piece of
evidence cannot be relied in the fact and circumstances of this case.
11. Since extra judicial confession is not proved. FSL report is on
record but accused / appellant is not confronted with this report and three
person were at home including daughter in-law and wife of the deceased at
the time of the incident and Mathani is a kitchen item therefore conviction in
this case is not based on reliable evidence and cannot be upheld, chain of
circumstances is not complete and extra-judicial confession is not proved.
12. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that conviction
recorded by the trial Court is based on improper appreciation of evidence
which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. As a result, the appeal filed
by the appellant is allowed and disposed of.
13. The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34486
7 CRA-4052-2024
case. The case property be disposed of in terms of the judgment of the trial
Court. Record of the trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
NRJ
