Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranjeet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14488
1 CRA-4383-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 24 th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4383 of 2018
RANJEET SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Gajendra Tamsikar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The appeal is heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is aggrieved by
the judgment and sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him by the learned
Session Judge, Khandwa vide order dated 24.01.2017 passed in Session Trial
No.100087/2015.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.04.2015, the informant Govind
Singh Rajput, a resident of Punasa informed the police over phone that in village
Aroda, one Jayendra Singh S/o Antar Singh Solanki, was killed by some unknown
persons with a sharp-edged weapon and that his body was lying on a cot in front
of his house. The Inspector upon receipt of information, made an entry in the daily
diary in Sr.No.914/15, which has been proved before the learned Court below as
Exhibit-P/24 and around 7:20 AM in the morning, proceeded for investigation.
4. The body was taken into custody by the police and sent for post-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14488
2 CRA-4383-2018
mortem. The post-mortem report reflects that there have been sharped edged
injuries on both the left and right cheeks of the deceased extending from the ear
lobe to the nostrils. However, the post-mortem report also records that the said
injuries were not the cause of death and has in fact referred to one of the incised
injuries as superficial. The hyoid bone was fractured and there was compression of
the throat and on the basis of other symptoms, the doctor who performed the post-
mortem held that the deceased died on account of asphyxia and the death was
homicidal in nature.
5. Undisputed facts of this case are that there are no eyewitnesses to the
incident. PW- 1, 3 and 6 have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the State
who has argued that the case against the appellant has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. He has further argued that the absence of eyewitness or direct
evidence does not dilute the prosecution's case and that the sum totality and
circumstances has rightly been appreciated by the learned trial Court in order to
convict the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand has
submitted that the case of the prosecution is one of no evidence. According to him,
fragmented pieces of facts has been clumsily clubbed together and the same does
not form a contiguous chain of reliable evidence in order to convict the appellant.
He has further submitted that the witnesses PW-1, 3 and 6 have stated the same
fact and that is, that the body of the deceased was found lying face down on the cot
in the morning outside his home with injuries on his neck. Besides this, the other
circumstances, on the basis of which the learned trial Court has convicted the
appellant is the statements of these three witnesses which also reflects that the
appellant was suspicious of the deceased being in a relationship with wife of the
appellant on account of which the murder was committed. The same even if true,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14488
3 CRA-4383-2018
only raises a suspicion and cannot be taken as a piece of evidence which could
prove the case of the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt, as was argued by
the learned counsel for the appellant. He has also argued that the knife/Baka that
was seized from the appellant was tested by the FSL and there was no human
blood was found on it and therefore, even the material objects that were collected
in order to buttress the case of the prosecution do connect the appellant to the
crime.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
learned trial Court.
7. The FIR in this case is Exhibit P/19. Pursuant to the said FIR the
investigation was launched by the police and the body was taken into custody and
sent for post-mortem. The post-mortem report which has been seen by this Court
is Exhibit P/11 and this Court feels it necessary to refer to the same briefly in
order to reflect the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased. Exhibit P/11
reflects that there were two incised injuries on the right and left side of the neck of
the deceased one of which commenced from his ear lobes to under the chin and the
other extended till the nostril. One of those injuries was held to be superficial by
the doctor in the post-mortem report and in his testimony. Thereafter, he has very
clearly referred to the fracture of hyoid bone on account of which there was
compression of the air passage leading to the death of the deceased by asphyxia. In
the post-mortem report, the doctor has stated that the cause of death is asphyxia on
account of a homicidal struggle. As regards the internal organs of the body, no
abnormality was detected by the doctor. The FSL report in this case is Exhibit
P/49 where exhibit B, the weapon used in the alleged murder, was examined and
no human blood was detected on it.
8. On an overall appreciation of the evidence against the appellant herein,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14488
4 CRA-4383-2018
all that this Court can say is that even if the evidence given by the prosecution
witnesses are taken to be believable, the same only raises a suspicion of a motive
that the appellant may have had for murdering the deceased. However, it is trite
law that in a case which is entirely pivoted on circumstantial evidence, the motive
may be one of the links in the chain of circumstances, but the same cannot be
relied upon in isolation, in the absence of other links in the chain, to hold the
appellant guilty as charged. Under the circumstances, the absence of eyewitnesses,
the artifacts recovered from the appellant also not connecting him to the crime,
and a weak motive, this Court holds that the prosecution has not being able to
prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances, the appeal is
allowed.
9. The judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is set
aside. The appellant, if he is undergoing his sentence, shall be set at liberty
forthwith.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
VB*
