Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankar Tikaar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26435
1 CRA-167-2023
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 19th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 167 of 2023
SHANKAR TIKAAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms.Manju Khatri, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
The appellant Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper) is aggrieved of judgment
dated 12.2.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Budhar,
District Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.400098/2015 convicting the appellant
Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper) for the offence under Sections 302, 450 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C") and Section 25(1B)(b) of the
Arms Act, 1959 and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life,
rigorous imprisonment for ten days and rigorous imprisonment for two years
with fine of Rs.200/-, Rs.100/-, Rs.50/- and in default of payment of fine to
undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months, one month and
fifteen days respectively with a further direction to run all the jail sentences
concurrently.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26435
2 CRA-167-2023
There are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) has
planted himself to be an eye-witness to the incident. He is the author of the
Merg Intimation (Exhibit P/1) and the FIR (Exhibit P/2). As there is no eye-
witness to the incident, the whole case of the prosecution rests upon the so
called oral dying declaration given by the deceased Raghvendra Singh to
Ganesh Singh (PW.9). The oral dying declaration being a weak piece of
evidence when read in totality, the conviction of the appellant cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case in
short is that on 28.3.2015 at about 11:00 PM, Raghvendra Singh (since
deceased), who was working as a Guard in a Private School at Sanjay Nagar
and was a resident of Ward No.3 Dhanpuri, was returning to his house after
watching Ramleela. As soon as Raghvendra Singh reached near his house,
the allegation is that the appellant Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper) had stabbed
Raghvendra Singh with a Knife, as a result of which, Raghvendra Singh
sustained injury in his chest. On hearing the cries of the injured Raghvendra
Singh, the complainant Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) and the neighbourer
Ganesh Singh (PW.9) had rushed to the spot. They had taken Raghvendra
Singh to the hospital in the Car of Ganesh Singh (PW.9) where he died.
There is no dying declaration recorded by the doctor to whom Raghvendra
Singh was taken nor there is any substance in the testimony made by Lakhan
Singh Gour (PW.1), who claims himself to be an eye-witness to the incident
and that of Ganesh Singh (PW.9), who claims that the oral dying declaration
was given to him by the deceased Raghvendra Singh. It is a case of no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26435
3 CRA-167-2023
evidence and, therefore, the finding of acquittal be recorded in favour of the
appellant by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated
12.2.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Budhar, District
Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.400098/2015.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand supports the
impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant and submits that firstly
there is recovery of a Knife as made vide Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/8). The
FSL report (Exhibit P/15) reveals that there were blood stains on the said
Knife and, therefore, in view of the said FSL report (Exhibit P/15), the
seizure of the Knife being corroborated with the FSL report (Exhibit P/15) is
a sufficient circumstance to uphold of the conviction of the appellant
especially in view of the testimony of the eye-witness Lakhan Singh Gour
(PW.1) and Ganesh Singh (PW.9).
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
6. Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) is real brother of deceased Raghvendra
Singh. Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) admits that the deceased Raghvendra
Singh was working as a Guard in a Private School. Lakhan Singh Gour
(PW.1) states that he was standing in front of the house of his door when he
saw the accused Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper), who is a resident of his Colony,
stabbing his brother with a Knife in his hand. Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper) had
caused the stab wound on the left hand side of the chest of the deceased
Raghvendra Singh, as a result of which, the deceased Raghvendra Singh had
fallen down shouting for help. Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) states that he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26435
4 CRA-167-2023
alongwith his wife, children and other family members when reached the
spot, the appellant threatened them with the help of the Knife and ran away.
7. The first material contradiction in the testimony of Lakhan Singh Gour
(PW.1) is that he has not been able to give correct place of the incident. In
Paragraph No.5 of his cross-examination, Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) admits
that the incident took place near the house of the appellant and later on
Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) on his own states that the incident took place in
front of a Wall situated in front of his house, which is a public place and
thereafter he states that the place where the incident took place is not a public
place but contains his boundary wall. Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) in
Paragraph No.6 states that the Hospital is situated in front of his house and,
therefore, the deceased Raghvendra Singh was treated at Dhanpuri Hospital
where he died.
8. Ganesh Singh (PW.9) in his examination-in-chief states that he was
inside his house at about 11:00 pm. He had heard the cries for help. When he
opened the door, he saw the appellant Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper) running
away with a Knife. He states that the incident took place in the Parchhi (front
Courtyard) of the deceased Raghvendra Singh. The Police had not taken any
statement from him. In Paragraph No.4 of his cross-examination, he admits
that he had not seen Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper) causing any injury to the
deceased Raghvendra Singh. He admits that after opening the door, he had
firstly visited the deceased Raghvendra Singh and then came to his house to
pick his vehicle. He had taken about five minutes in the aforesaid process. In
Paragraph No.6 of his cross-examination, Ganesh Singh (PW.9) admits that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26435
5 CRA-167-2023
Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) was not present at the place of the incident.
Thus, it is evident that the attempt of Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) claiming
himself to be an eye-witness and thereafter stating that he had seen the
appellant Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper) causing injury to the deceased
Raghvendra Singh is not made out. Ganesh Singh (PW.9) was neither
declared hostile nor was re-examined by learned Public Prosecutor for the
State.
9. Virendra Singh (PW.2) is another younger brother of the deceased
Raghvendra Singh. In Paragraph No.10 of his cross-examination, Virendra
Singh (PW.2) admits that when he had reached the Angan (Courtyard), at
that time, Ganesh Singh (PW.9) was already present at the place of the
incident. Ganesh Singh (PW.9) has not shown the presence of Virendra
Singh (PW.2), who is younger brother of the deceased Raghvendra Singh
and also that of Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) at the place of the incident,
therefore, the testimony of Virendra Singh (PW.2) that he had seen the
incident and the deceased Raghvendra Singh had informed him that the
appellant Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper) had caused the said incident, is not made
out.
10. Kamalbhan Singh (PW.3) states that the deceased Raghvendra Singh
was vomiting blood and thereafter the persons came running and had taken
him to the Hospital. Kamalbhan Singh (PW.3) in his cross-examination
admits that for last 5-6 years, his hearing is impaired.
11. Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1), Virendra Singh (PW.2) and Kamalbhan
Singh (PW.3) admit that there was no enmity of the deceased Raghvendra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26435
6 CRA-167-2023
Singh with the appellant Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper).
12. Neha Singh (PW.4) admits that Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) is also a
planted witness. Neha Singh (PW.4) in Paragraph No.5 of her cross-
examination admits that when the deceased Raghvendra Singh was in the
Courtyard, at that time, nobody was with him between 10:00 to 11:00 PM.
Even the presence of this witness has not been shown by the independent
witness Ganesh Singh (PW.9). Similar statement has been given by Deepika
Singh (PW.5), another niece of the deceased Raghvendra Singh. The witness
of seizure Rajesh Pratap Singh (PW.7) was declared hostile. Rajesh Pratap
Singh (PW.7) in his cross-examination states that certain papers were signed
by him at the Police Station. He had signed on the Seizure Memo at the
Police Station. Similarly, another witness of seizure Manish Kumar Parihar
(PW.8) states that two papers were signed by him at the Police Station in
support of the seizure of the Knife. Bheeshm Pitamah Singh Parihar (PW.10)
admits in Paragraph No.3 of his cross-examination that he had not seen the
appellant Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper) causing injury with a Knife to the
deceased Raghvendra Singh.
13. Dr.Ravindra Mishra (PW.13), who conducted the postmortem on the
body of the deceased Raghvendra Singh, states that when the body of the
deceased Raghvendra Singh was brought to him, he had seen that there was a
stitched wound on the right hand side of the chest on the second and third
number of sternum and ribs. On opening of the stitches, he had found
another wound measuring 2'' X 1/2'' X 4'' as a result of which, the Shirt and
Vest were also torn. The injury was caused by a sharp edged penetrating
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26435
7 CRA-167-2023
object like Chaku, Talwar or Gupti. Dr.Ravindra Mishra (PW.13) admits
that there was a single stab wound and the deceased Raghvendra Singh died
because of excessive blood loss and shock so also due to the injury in the
internal organ of lungs.
1 4 . Dr.Ravindra Mishra (PW.13) in Paragraph No.6 of his cross-
examination states that he had mentioned in his report Exhibit P/21 that the
cause of death of the deceased Raghvendra Singh was excessive blood loss.
He clarifies this and then states that it means that after sustaining the injury
for a period of one hour, no treatment was given to the Patient. He admits
that he had not given any first aid or preliminary treatment. He also admits
that in the MLC report (Exhibit D/1), it is mentioned that there was a stab
wound on the left hand side of the sternum measuring 5 cm X 3 cm X 2 cm.
The aforesaid injury was termed by Dr.Rajeev Kumar Singh to be grievous
in nature. He admits that the size of the injury as is mentioned in the Exhibit
D/1 is different from the one, which was found in the postmortem. The injury
discovered in the postmortem was smaller in size than the one, which is
mentioned in the MLC (Exhibit D/1). He states that since there was one
injury, there was only one cut mark in the Shirt of the deceased Raghvendra
Singh.
15. Thus, when all these facts are taken into consideration then the story of
the prosecution that Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1), Virendra Singh (PW.2),
Kamalbhan Singh (PW.3), Neha Singh (PW.4), Deepika Singh (PW.5) and
Rishabh Singh (PW.6) had seen the incident, is not made out. Had they seen
the incident then could have taken the deceased Raghvendra Singh promptly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26435
8 CRA-167-2023
to the Hospital, which is situated opposite to the house of Lakhan Singh
Gour (PW.1)
16. As per Dr.Ravindra Mishra (PW.13), who conducted the postmortem
of the deceased Raghvendra Singh, there would not have been so much of
blood loss if the injured would have been given immediate medical attention.
There is no explanation that how the patient remained unattended especially
in view of the testimony of Lakhan Singh Gour (PW.1) that the Hospital is
situated in front of his house and they had promptly taken the injured
Raghvendra Singh to the Hospital. Hence, it can be said that all the so called
eye-witnesses have been planted and none of them had seen the incident. In
absence of Dr.Rajeev Kumar Singh being examined, who had conducted the
MLC (Exhibit D/1), it cannot be said that the deceased Raghvendra Singh
was promptly taken to the Hospital and he was in a position to give oral
dying declaration as has been narrated by the prosecution witnesses.
17. The Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Ramjan Khan &
Others 2024 SCC Online SC 3070 has observed that the oral dying
declaration is a weak piece of evidence. There is no mention of any oral
dying declaration in the FIR (Exhibit P/2). The Apex Court in Paragraph
No.20 has held as under:-
20. The undisputed and indisputable position obtained from the
evidence on record is that the defence had brought out that neither
in Ext. P12 FIR nor in Ext. D3 statement of PW8 recorded under
Section 161, Cr.P.C, PW8 stated about the oral dying declaration
made to her by the deceased. That apart, the prosecution had failed
to establish that when PW8 reached the place of occurrence the
deceased was in a fit state of mind to speak or talk relevantly.
Except the statement of PW8 in the Court there is no scrap of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26435
9 CRA-167-2023
evidence in that regard in the case on hand. As a matter of fact, on
this aspect nothing was brought out from PW5 and PW9 or from
any other witnesses. There can be no doubt that oral dying
declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence
of the court in its correctness. In the contextual situation revealed
as above, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was
perfectly justified in considering the oral testimony of PW8 and
taking serious note of the serious omission brought out from her,
on being confronted with Ext. P12 FIR and Ext. D3, which is her
previous statement made to police, that she had not stated anything
about such an oral dying declaration made by her deceased son.
The High Court also took note of the fact that neither PW5 nor
PW9 had spoken about any such oral dying declaration made by
the deceased brother to their mother-PW8. Add to it, the oral
testimony of PW8 would reveal that while being examined-in-
chief she deposed what Haseen Khan (PW5) and Fareed Khan
(PW9) divulged to her. She would depose: "When my sons Fareed
Khan and Haseen Khan told me at home that accused persons have
killed Naseem Khan then I reached the place of incident.
18. Since Ganesh Singh (PW.9) in Paragraph No.1 of his
examination-in-chief states that the oral dying declaration was given by the
deceased Raghvendra Singh to him and Ganesh Singh (PW.9) having denied
presence of the family members of the deceased Raghvendra Singh, there is
contradiction in the narration as mentioned in the FIR (Exhibit P/2) and that
of the statement given by the independent witness Ganesh Singh (PW.9). It is
well settled principle of law as held by the Apex Court in Chandubhai
Shanabhai Parmar versus State of Gujarat AIR 1982 SC 1022 that when
ocular evidence in a murder case is unreliable, the benefit of doubt is to be
given to the accused person.
19. The Apex Court in Anil Phukan versus State of Assam (1993) 3 SCC
282 has held that conviction could be based on the testimony of a single
witness provided his testimony is found reliable and inspires confidence but
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26435
10 CRA-167-2023
in the present case, the testimony of the so called eye-witnesses is not
reliable, therefore, the benefit of doubt is required to be accrued in favour of
the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt.
20. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.
21. The impugned judgment of conviction of appellant Shankar Tikaar
(Sweeper) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Budhar, District
Shahdol on 12.2.2019 in Sessions Trial No.400098/2015 for the offence
under Sections 302, 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25(1B)
(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 is hereby set aside.
22. The appellant Shankar Tikaar (Sweeper) is in jail. He be set at liberty
forthwith if he is not required in any other case.
23. Record of the Trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
