Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amrika Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1 CRA-644-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 644 of 2016
AMRIKA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Indrajeet Singh Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
Heard on I.A.No.2922/2024, which an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of
I.A.No.2922/2024.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, I.A.No.2922/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.01.2016
passed in S.T.No.191/2013 imposed upon him by the learned trial Court,
where the appellant has been found guilty of having committed an offence
2 CRA-644-2016
punishable under Section 302 of IPC and caused the death of one Dipak
Singh.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 13.08.2013 the elder brother
of the deceased Dipak Singh whose name is Hiralal approached Police
Station Rajendragram and gave an intimation that his brother Dipak Singh
left home on 10.08.2013 at 3:00 PM and has not returned. It is further the
case of the prosecution that the father of Dipak Singh searched for him but
was unsuccessful in finding him. On 13.08.2013 when Somkali (PW-6) at
6:00 AM went to draw water from her Well, she saw a body floating in it.
Other people had also gathered at the well and identified the body as that of
Dipak Singh. Inquest proceedings were initiated by the police and the site
map was prepared which is Exhibit P/9, and the body was extracted from the
well, the Panchnama prepared. The Panch witnesses opined that the deceased
died due to drowning from falling into the Well. However, in order to
ascertain the actual cause of death, the body was sent for post-mortem. The
FIR was registered three days after the deceased went missing.
4. The post-mortem report has been seen by this Court, which is
Exhibit P/5. The doctor opines in the post-mortem report that there were no
external injuries seen anywhere of the body however the body was in an
advance stage of decomposition with maggots crawling on it, but all the
internal organs were intact without any injuries. As regards the cause of
death, the doctor opines that it is not clear, but he records that "signs of
drowning seen".
5. The eyewitness's testimony in this case is stated to be that of
3 CRA-644-2016
Takdeer Lal (PW-7). It is relevant to mention here that his 161 statement was
recorded belatedly after the passage of more than 15 days. In his court
testimony he says that the incident was of August 2013, when in the
afternoon, at around 3:00 PM, he had left his home to buy rice when he met
the appellant near the house of one Sarju. He says that appellant
accompanied him to the shop to buy rice. The appellant states that he bought
two sacks of rice for Rs.400/- and from there he caught a bus and went
home. He also states that appellant accompanied the witness in the bus and
the appellant got down from the bus and took one sack of rice with him while
the other was taken by the witness. Thereafter, this witness states that he
along with the appellant went to the house of the appellant and on the way,
they met the deceased Dipak Singh who was standing near the door of his
house. Thereafter, the witness along with the deceased and the appellant
herein went inside the house of the appellant and the appellant is stated to
have opened the bottle of liquor and all the three sat down and consumed the
same. He further states that the wife of the appellant was inside the house and
when the liquor was about to finish, Amarvati (PW-8) wife of the witness
came to call him upon which the wife of the appellant told Amarvati that her
husband would reach home in a short while and so Amarvati went away. In
paragraph-3 of his in-chief, the witness states that the appellant gave a
frontal assault to the deceased by punching him upon which the witness tried
to intercede. Thereafter, the appellant is stated to have taken a plank lying
there and struck the deceased on his temple as a result of which the deceased
died on the spot. The witness says that when he tried to intercede, the
4 CRA-644-2016
appellant threatened him with dire consequences of death and so he ran away
from the scene of occurrence. He further says that he did not inform anyone
out of fear of the appellant. In cross-examination, this witness states that the
deceased was bleeding profusely and there were blood stains on the floor and
walls of the house. He was confronted with his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C
wherein he had stated that the deceased became unconscious, and that the
statement of the witness, in his chief examination, that the deceased died on
the spot was an improvement and a contradiction, which arose in his
testimony in the trial Court.
6. Amarvati (PW-8) is the wife of witness PW7. She states that the
appellant had taken her husband (PW-7) to his home. She further says that
she had gone to the house of the appellant to call her husband and found him
sitting there with the bottle in front of him. She further says that the wife of
the appellant informed her that her husband will return in a short while upon
which she went back to her house. She also says that the people who were
there in the room were her husband, wife of the appellant, the deceased and
the appellant. She states categorically that she does not know anything about
the deceased and that later she heard in the village that the appellant has
murdered the deceased Dipak. This witness is hearsay. Interestingly, the
source of her information is not her husband who is a purported eyewitness
in this case but rumours floating in the village. Her statement has also been
recorded belatedly under the Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
7. The next witness which is relevant is PW-12 who is the
Investigating Officer in this case. He has not given any reasons for recording
5 CRA-644-2016
the statements of PW-7 and PW-8 belatedly. In his cross-examination, he
says that there were no bloodstains at the scene of crime which conflicts with
the statement given by PW-7 who says that there were bloodstains at the
scene of crime and that the deceased was bleeding.
8. PW-17 was the A.S.I. who had carried out the inquest proceedings
and has stated that in his opinion and that of the panch witnesses, the cause
of death of the deceased was on account of drowning from falling into the
Well.
9. The post-mortem report, which has already been referred to
hereinabove clearly states that there are no external injuries, nor any internal
organs have been damaged. However, on account of advanced putrefaction
of the body, the doctor has not been able to give a clear opinion of the cause
of death. However, what he does exclude categorically is, the presence of
any external injuries, which ought to have naturally resulted if the statement
of PW-7 is to be believed that there was an assault on the deceased by the
accused. Moreover, PW-7 goes to the extent of saying that the deceased bled
and there were blood stains at the scene of occurrence, which reflects that
they would have been an open injuries/wound suffered by the deceased,
which however is not supported by the post-mortem report and spot map
which are contrary.
10. Under the circumstances, in view of the fact that the 161
statements of PW-7 and PW-8 have been recorded belatedly after more than
fifteen days after the incident, for which the Investigating Officer has given
no reasons and neither has he given any explanation as to how these
6 CRA-644-2016
witnesses either approached him to give the statements or how he
approached those witnesses thinking that they were relevant to disclose facts
and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the statement of PW-7 that he was
an eyewitness to the offence stands belied by the statement of the doctor who
proved the post-mortem report and also the statement of the Investigating
Officer who says that there were no blood stains at the scene of occurrence
or on the wooden plank that was used as the weapon of offence. Therefore,
the court holds that on the basis of the evidence adduced before learned trial
Court, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. The appeal succeeds and is allowed.
11. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant by the learned trial Court is set aside.
12. The appellant shall be released forthwith.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
VB*
