Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
1 CRA-412-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 412 of 2016
SHYAMLAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Singh, learned senior counsel with Shri Rajesh Yadav for the
appellant.
Shri H.S.Rathore, learned GA for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 713 of 2016
MANOHARLAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri H.S.Rathore, learned GA for the respondent/State.
Reserved on 05.03.2025
Delivered on 13.03.2025.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 3/13/2025
6:40:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
2 CRA-412-2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per Justice Gajendra Singh:
These criminal appeals have been preferred being aggrieved by
the conviction under section 302 r/w section 34 & 201 r/w section 34
of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment for reminder of natural
life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of 3 years
additional RI and sentence of 3 years RI and fine of Rs.5,000/- with
default stipulation of one year additional RI to each appellant in
sessions case no.278/2013 by Sessions Judge, Mandsaur vide
judgment dated 06.02.2016.
2. Prosecution case in nutshell is that a Marg under section
174 of the Cr.P.C was registered on 20.07.2013 after receiving
intimation that a beheaded body is lying on the government land of
village Suryakheda. Marg No.37/13 (Ex.P/36) was registered and a
Dehati Nalishi was also recorded as Ex.P/19 by Sub Inspector NS
Maravi, PS Sitamau and a crime no.422/13 under section 302 & 201
of the IPC was registered against unknown persons vide Ex.P/35 on
20.07.2013. The matter was investigated and beheaded body was
identified as Karulal s/o Uddaji Gurjar, aged 50 years, R/o
Suryakheda, PS Sitamau, district Mandsaur. During the course of
investigation appellant Shyamlal was arrested on 22.07.2013 at 09.50
a.m vide Ex.P/26 and appellant Manoharlal was arrested on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
3 CRA-412-2016
22.07.2013 at 10.50 a.m in village Suryakheda from his house vide
Ex.P/17. A memorandum of information received from Shyamlal
Ex.P/31 and from Manoharlal Ex.P.32 were prepared and recoveries
were made. The statements were recorded and seized articles were
sent for forensic examination. Dead body was confirmed to be of
Karulal through DNA finger print. After investigation a final report
under section 173 Cr.P.C was prepared against appellants and
submitted to the Court of JMFC, Sitamau and criminal case
no.969/2013 was registered and vide order dated 05.10.2013 case
was committed to the Sessions Court, Mandsaur.
3. Appellants/accused abjured guilt regarding charges under
section 302 r/w section 34 of the IPC and 201 r/w section 34 of the
IPC and claimed for trial.
4. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined as many as
23 witnesses including Mangilal, who is the son of deceased Karulal
as PW/1, Jagdish as PW/2, Sarpanch of village Morkheda
Narendrasingh as PW/3, Rajendra Kumar as PW/4, Shyamlal as
PW/5, Sona as PW/6, Dalibai as PW/7, Sampatbai as PW/8, Dilip
Bilodiya as PW/9, medical officer Dr.Vijay Soora as PW/10,
scientific officer Dr.Atul Mittal who prepared scene of crime as
PW/11, Patwari Halka no.34 gram Suryakhedi and Morekheda KL
Patidar as PW/12, Sanjay Soni as PW/13. medical officer Dr.Saurabh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
4 CRA-412-2016
Madwariya as PW/14, ASI Chainsingh as PW/15, Ratanlal as
PW/16, ASI NS Marawi as PW/17, Shankarlal as PW/18,
photographer Bhanwarlal as PW/19, Ambalal as PW/20, Constable
Gauravsingh as PW/21, ASI Rauf Khan as PW/22, Inspector Santosh
Dudhi as PW/23.
5. In examination under section 313 Cr.P.C, appellants
Shyamlal and Manoharlal admitted the fact that witnesses and
appellants are familiar to each other. Both the appellants admitted
that a dispute relating to land of house site was going on between
Shyamlal and Karulal since long and Shyamlal was claiming that
Karulal has constructed a house on his land but explained that a
compromise was entered into between Shyamlal and Karulal. Rest
of the facts were either denied or ignorance was expressed regarding
circumstances appeared against them in prosecution evidence and
took the defence that due to enmity they have been falsely
implicated. Shyamlal has gone to his sasural 3-4 days prior to the
incident and he was arrested by the police without any basis. Same
defence has been advanced by Manoharlal. They have not adduced
any evidence in their defence.
6. Appreciating the evidence, trial court convicted and
sentenced the appellants as per para-1 of the judgment.
7. Challenging the conviction and sentence criminal appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
5 CRA-412-2016
no.412/2016 is preferred on the ground that judgment of the trial
court is contrary to law and facts on record. Trial court committed
error in believing prosecution witnesses and discarding defence
version. Trial court based its findings by drawing unwarranted
inferences. Trial court also committed error in not considering the
material omissions and contradictions in the statement of prosecution
witnesses.
8. Criminal appeal no.713/2016 is preferred on the ground
that trial court committed error in disbelieving the oral and
documentary evidence regarding plea of alibi as advanced by the
appellant. Appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the case. Trial court grossly erred in appreciating the facts
established in cross examination of the prosecution witnesses in just
and proper manner. Trial court failed to appreciate the statememts of
all the defence witnesses in just and proper manner. Prosecution
case is lifeless, mechanical and does not stand to scrutiny.
9. Heard.
10. Government Advocate has supported the conviction and
sentence and submitted that no interference either in conviction or in
the sentence is required and both the appeals be dismissed being
devoid of merit.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
6 CRA-412-2016
11. Perused the record.
12. Para-22, 36 & 39 of the impugned judgment makes it clear
that there is no eye witness to the incident. The case of prosecution
is based on the theory that appellants were not in good relation with
Karulal as appellant Shyamlal had grievance with Karulal as he
constructed his house on the land of Shyamlal in village Suryakheda,
PS Sitamau, district Mandsaur and due to this relation was not in
good terms and an enmity was developed between the appellants and
Karulal. On the date of incident, Karulal has gone to Sitamau and
his beheaded body was found on 20.07.2013 at the Magar of village
Suryakheda and head was recovered 1 km. away from where the
beheaded body was found. When the body was recovered, appellants
were not available in the village Suryakheda. The blood stained
clothes of the deceased were recovered on the information of the
appellants. The blood stained Darata (sickle) was also recovered.
From the information of the appellant Manohar, a motorcycle was
also recovered from the house of Shyamlal. The blood stained
clothes of appellant Shyamlal and Manohar were recovered from the
farm house belonging to the brother-in-law of Shyamlal situated at
village Rajgarh, PS Nagda, district Ujjain. In examination under
section 313 of the Cr.P.C, both the appellants explained that they
were in their Sasural 3-4 days prior to the incident. The motorcycle
bearing registration no.MP-14-BA-6685 was used to carry the head
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
7 CRA-412-2016
of deceased and thrown away at a different place to disappear the
evidence of the crime.
13. Appreciating the evidence, trial court found proved the
above theory of prosecution and recorded the finding that appellants
are the persons who committed murder of Karulal.
14. The findings of the trial court are challenged by the
appellants on the ground that circumstances relied by the trial court
are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and they did not form the
chain so complete so that it can be concluded that there is no escape
from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and they are incapable of explanation of
any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the appellants and
inconsistent with their innocence. They pointed out that no one has
seen the deceased with the appellants on the date of incident. On the
contrary, it was Dilip Bilodiya (PW/9) who was with the deceased
Karulal last time at Sitamau on 19.07.2013. The circumstances of
enmity has no relevance because two years prior to the incident their
score was settled vide Ex.P/15 and thereafter no incident of dispute
ever occurred with Shyamlal and appellant Manoharlal comes to
village once in a period of 4-5 months only for a short duration of 5-
7 days whereas Ramchandra, Raju, Gopal, Shankarlal, Inderlal and
other residents of village Suryakheda have enmity with Karulal due
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
8 CRA-412-2016
to land dispute.
15. It is also urged on behalf of the appellants that no fact has
been discovered on the information of the appellants on 22.07.2013
because the clothes of the deceased were already seized and Darata
(sickle) was also seized at the same time. It is also urged that no fact
has been discovered on the strength of seizure of motor cycle bearing
registration no.MP-14-BA-6685 from the house of Shyamlal on
22.07.2013. It is also urged that no fact has been discovered on the
strength of recovery of appellants' clothes from the farm house of
brother-in-law of Shyamlal situated at village Rajpura, Nagda district
Ujjain. It is also urged that their absence on the date of incident in
village Suryakheda is explained as they have gone to village
Rajkheda where the sasural of Shyamlal is situated.
16. Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate has argued that
circumstances relied on by the prosecution have been found proved by
the trial court beyond reasonable doubt and those circumstances formed
a chain so complete that no other inference can be drawn except guilt of
the appellants.
17. Perused the record.
18. Mangilal (PW/1) is the son of deceased Karulal. Mangilal has
deposed that on 19.07.2013 at 10-11 a.m his father Karulal left village
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
9 CRA-412-2016
Suryakheda for Sitamau. On that day no one has seen the
appellants/accused in the company of Karulal or returning appellants
from Sitamau to village Suryakheda. As per Dilip Bilodiya (PW/9) and
Mangilal (PW/1) the deceased was last seen with Dilip (PW/9), who has
stated that he met Karulal at Khati Mohalla, Titrod Darvaja, Sitamau at
6.30 p.m on 19.07.2013 and he dropped Karulal at Modimata Darvaja
and Karulal has told Dilip (PW/9) that he will attend Gurumandir at the
occasion of Gurupoornima with Dilip Bilodiya which was to be
celebrated on 22.07.2013.
19. Trial court has recorded the finding in para-33 of the
judgment that despite the compromise Ex.P/15 it cannot be inferred that
there was no dispute between the appellants and Karulal. This finding
of the trial court does not find approval of this Court because para-9 of
Mangilal (PW/1) has stated that after Ex.P/15 he never saw that there
was a dispute between his father and appellants and his father also never
told them that appellants have caused dispute with him. It was further
his version that appellants were in the habit to utter abusive words to his
father after consuming liquor. This statement is not in conformity with
the fact that this witness himself has stated in para-10 that appellant
Manohar comes in 4-5 months only for a limited period of 5-7 days and
he spend that time in the company of Shyamlal. Trial court did not
appreciate para-7 of this witness where he has admitted that
Ramchandra, Raju, Gopal, Shankarlal and Inderlal have land dispute
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
10 CRA-412-2016
with his father. Accordingly, the circumstances of enmity of appellants
with Karulal also does not stand on re-appreciation of evidence.
20. Trial court has taken into consideration that on the
information of appellants recorded by Inspector Santosh Dudi (PW/23)
blood stained clothes and one pair shoes of plastic were recovered vide
Ex.P/7 and as per Ex.P/11 those clothes were identified by Mangilal
(PW/1) as belonging to his father.
21. The above findings have to be reexamined in the light of
para-3 of Inspector Satosh Dudi (PW/23), who stated that during
investigation he searched the place near the place of incident and after
search a pair plastic shoes, one full hand shirt, one while baniyan, an
underwear and a dothi and towel all stained with soil were recovered
vide Ex.P/7. Ex.P/5 mentions that head of Karulal was found from a
place known as Pili Khadan situated in a haunted area and used for
mining where various types of pits and trees of palas and bushes were
grown. The head was in very bad condition. This head was found on
21.07.2013 at 12.45 p.m and this place has been marked in spot map
Ex.P/19 and is situated at a distance of 1 km. from the place where the
beheaded body of Karulal was found at a place marked in Ex.P/18. This
reveals that a roving search was conducted to recover the head of
Karulal and in this background when Santosh Dudi (PW/23) states that
clothes and towel were recovered during the search near the place of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
11 CRA-412-2016
incident and Santosh Dudi (PW/23) has stated in para-25 that on the way
head of Karulal was found, clothes of Karulal were recovered on the
same day then this theory got demolished that those clothes were
recovered at the information of Manoharlal. Similarly, it is also
demolished that a darata (sickle) was recovered from the information of
Manoharlal from the bushes near the hump of garbage at Pili Khadan of
Jagan Talai because vide Ex.P/28 the same place was already searched.
22. Rest two circumstances i.e. (i) appellants were not in village
Suryakheda when Karulal was killed and (ii) blood stained clothes of
appellants were recovered from the farm house situated at village
Rajgarh, Nagda, district Ujjain belonging to the brother-in-law of
appellant Shyamlal are now being considered. Brother-in-law of
Shyamlal viz. Mansingh was not examined and chowkidar Shankarlal
(PW/18) has stated that police has seized the clothes in his presence vide
Ex.P/49 and Ex.P/50. Santosh Dudi (PW/23) has stated that he seized
the clothes vide seizure memo Ex.P/49 and P/50 on 23.07.2013 at the
indication of Mansingh and Ex.P/67 only mentions that among those
clothes belonging to Shyamlal and Manoharlal human blood was found
but blood group could not be identified. The mere circumstance that
appellants were absent from the house during the period when Karulal
was killed and presence of blood on the clothes of appellants in the
absence of identification of blood group or quantity of blood on the
clothes alone are not sufficient to conclude that they formed a chain so
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6933
12 CRA-412-2016
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
human probability the crime was committed by the appellants and they
are incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than that of guilt of
the accused and inconsistent with their innocence. The parameters of
Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra - (1984) 4 SCC 116
and Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab - 2024 INSC 19 are not satisfied
from the prosecution evidence, hence appellants are entitled the benefit
of doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are
not sustainable in law.
23. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the conviction and
sentence of the appellants vide judgment dated 06.02.2016 are set aside.
They are acquitted from the charges under section 302 r/w section 34 &
201 r/w section 34 of the IPC and the appellants are directed to be
released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
24. Copy of the judgment along with record be sent to the
concerned trial court for compliance.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
