Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1 CRA-3824-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3824 of 2017
RAJESH KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Jagat Kumar Dehariya - Advocate for the appellant .
Shri Akhilendra Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondent State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the
learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori (M.P.) vide order dated
06.12.2016 in Session Trial No. 121/2015 by which the appellant has been
found guilty of murdering his wife Kunnibai. Appellant was also found
guilty for committing offence under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code for
having concealed the evidence relating to the murder by disposing of the
body by burying it in a pit which was dug for a well.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
3. The complainant Hironda Bai went to Police Station, Karanjiya and
gave a written report that her daughter Kunni Bai, who five years before was
2 CRA-3824-2017
staying at the house of her uncle at village Raitwar, and was studying in X
standard and later started staying as the wife of the appellant herein. It is
further stated in the complaint that the father of the appellant herein gave
them a piece of land to stay separately and that they have a three years old
child, whose name is Sahil. She further states that 1 or 2 months before
complaint, the appellant and her daughter went away and later she came to
know by a phone call that they were staying at Raigarh and working there.
On 22.7.2015, the complainant's younger sister-in-law Jediyabai informed
her over phone that her daughter Kunni Bai has gone away from Raigarh.
Complainant further states that they inquired in nearby places, but could not
get any information relating to whereabouts of Kunni Bai. On the basis of
said complaint, a missing report being No. 13/15 was registered at Police
Station, Karanjiya and matter was taken into inquiry. In the course of
inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the Police that the appellant had buried
the body of the deceased in a pit dug for a well upon which the inquest
proceedings were carried out and the body was exhumed. The Police also
recorded the statements of the witnesses and the investigation revealed that it
was the appellant who had given effect to the crime leading to the
registration of F.I.R No. 242/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The postmortem of the body was carried
out and the charge-sheet was filed, the trial conducted and the appellant was
convicted. The evidence inditing the appellant before the Trial Court was
firstly, the recovery of body from his field; (2) the motive was quarrels
between husband and wife; (3) the postmortem report (though inconclusive);
3 CRA-3824-2017
and (4) the 161 statement of the appellant wherein he had admitted his crime.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case against the
appellant is one of no evidence and despite that he has already suffered the
sentence of 9 years. He says that there is no evidence with regard to any
kind of altercation or any serious conflict between the appellant and the
deceased immediately preceding the recovery of the body. As regards
motive, learned counsel for the appellant submits that nothing beyond
ordinary quarrels, which are common in all domestic households, has been
established by the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, no clear-cut motive
for committing the murder is on record. Thirdly, with regard to postmortem,
learned counsel for appellant submits that the same is inconclusive and does
not even give the cause of the death. He further says the postmortem is silent
whether the death is homicidal, suicidal or accidental. Lastly, he submits
that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the appellant being hit by
Section 25 of the Evidence Act is worthless and cannot be taken as a
circumstance against him.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the
case against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt, and it was
not essential that the case had to be proved through ocular, or direct
evidence. He further states that the recovery of the body of the deceased
from the field of the appellant shifts the onus on him to explain the
circumstances under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as to how his wife's
body came to be buried in the field. He further submits that appellant has
also admitted that when he found his wife hanging, out of fear of the Police,
4 CRA-3824-2017
he buried her in a pit. This admission has come out in Section 161 statement
of the appellant. He further submitted on behalf of State that even the P.M.R
does not disclose the cause of death as the body was heavily decomposed
and only the skeletal remains were there. The appellant not providing any
explanation for the presence of the body of his wife in the said pit go to
show that he was guilty of the offence and that is why he tried to cover it up.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the trial Court.
7. The undisputed facts of this case are that the body was recovered
from the field of the appellant and not from his house. The statement of the
parents of the deceased, who have been examined as P.W.-1 and P.W-2
reflects that the deceased and appellant wanted to stay together as they were
romantically inclined towards each other. They also spoke about a
Panchayat sitting that had taken place which had voiced their no objection to
the appellant and deceased staying together. The evidence of the parents also
disclosed that initially they were staying at village Karanjiya, which is also
the home village of the deceased and after some time they shifted to village
Pakdisoda where they remained till the body was discovered. Their statement
also disclosed that there were quarrels between deceased and appellant and
how an occasion the deceased had left the matrimonial house and came to
the house of the witnesses. She stayed there for some time where the
deceased informed her mother that the appellant told her to runaway
somewhere if she wants to stay alive. After that, the witnesses said that the
appellant came and took the deceased along with him back to Pakdisoda
5 CRA-3824-2017
where they live for almost 1 and a half years before the incident. In cross-
examination, these witnesses have stated that there was nothing unusually
violent about the relationship between the appellant and the deceased to their
knowledge, but they have mentioned that quarrels used to take place.
Besides that, they also stated that the couple have a three year old child. The
postmortem report is completely inconclusive and for good reasons as the
body was exhumed after three months and but for skeletal remains, there left
very little tissues left and, therefore, the ligature mark was undetectable. The
remains of the deceased were intact without any broken bone, ribs etc. and
even the neck part of the body was intact. In other words, there has been no
finding of the hyoid bone being broken or any of her vertebra of the neck
being cracked or dislocated in order to reflect violence to the neck either by
strangulation or by hanging which may have caused the death. The
postmortem report also reflects that there was adipose formation on the body
which happens to bodies which are exposed to high humidity and water
where the fat inside the body exudes outwards in forming ball like
substance. The adipose formation can be explained perhaps by the
accumulation of water or due to water seeping into the pit during the rains.
The postmortem report does not give any opinion whether the cause of death
was homicidal, suicidal or accidental.
8. The prosecution story that the deceased died because of hanging
and thereafter the appellant buried her body is entirely based upon the
statement of accused himself which is the version given by the prosecution.
In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever with regard to the cause of death or
6 CRA-3824-2017
motive. There is no evidence whether it was the appellant himself who had
buried the body in the pit. But for the statement of P.W. 5 who is a J.C.B
operator who says that who was engaged by the appellant to fill up the pit
and level it. However, he has been declared hostile because he stated that he
did not see any body inside the pit when he was levelling the it.
9. Be that as it may. Section 161, Cr.P.C statement of the appellant as
already stated herein is worthless as it is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence
Act.
10. Thus, it is seen by this Court that there is no legally tenable
evidence to hold that the appellant even knew about manner in which the
deceased died or where her body was and in the absence of any motive, the
inconclusive postmortem report, the absence of a memorandum under
Section 27 of Evidence Act , this Court hold that prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the case against the appellant herein.
11. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement of conviction
dated 6.12.2016 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori is set aside.
The appellant be released forthwith.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
VKT
