Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Dhurve vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20937
1 CRA-888-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 888 of 2014
ARVIND DHURVE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Jagat Kumar Dehariya - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Anuradha Shukla
Appellant is in custody in this case since 17.5.2013 and an
application for seeking suspension of sentence and bail is pending as I.A.
No.6945/2025, which is second in sequence, while the first one was
dismissed as withdrawn on 11.7.2014.
2 . With the consent of both the parties, this appeal has been heard
finally.
3. The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment passed by Fourth
Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No.188/2013,
decided on 23.1.2014, whereby the appellant was convicted of the
offence of Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20937
2 CRA-888-2014
fine of Rs.200/- with a default clause to undergo additional rigorous
imprisonment of one month.
4. The case of prosecution may be briefly stated as: appellant married
Sevanti about three to four years prior to the incident and son Rohit was
born to them; they lived happily for almost two years, but then appellant
developed relationship with another woman, named Savita, and brought
her home; quarrels started thereafter and appellant used to physically
assault Sevanti; he forcibly took the jewelry of Sevanti and sold it in
market for Rs.1200/-; in the morning of 14.5.2013, he again demanded
money from Sevanti but when she expressed her inability to fetch money
from her parental house, Savita, the other accused who was acquitted by
the trial court, asked appellant to kill both - Sevanti and her son Rohit;
he then physically assaulted Sevanti and snatched Rohit from her grip; he
threatened that he would hang both, Sevanti and Rohit, to death; he even
thrashed Rohit and threw him on the floor; to save herself, Sevanti fled
away and ran to her parental village where she informed her relatives and
Gram Pradhan;
5. Sevanti, still finding a threat to herself, went to the agriculture field
for the purpose of hiding; around two-three hours later, she was called by
her sister Reshmi Bai; on her arrival in parental house, she found Rohit
there; Reshmi Bai told her that Savita had brought him; many injuries
were there on his body; he was taken to hospital where he died on
15.5.2013 at around 3:00-3:30 p.m.; the hospital authorities informed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20937
3 CRA-888-2014
police about the admission and death of Rohit; a Marg was instituted and
later an FIR was registered regarding offence of Sections 498-A and
302/34 IPC at Crime No.75/2013; the investigation was held and after its
completion, the charge-sheet was filed. Upon conclusion of trial,
appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid while co-accused
Savita was acquitted of all the charges.
6. The prosecution has claimed that the two years old son of
complainant Sevanti was thrown on the floor by appellant, who happens
to be the father of child, and this act resulted into fatal injuries to the
young child. The date of incident is stated to be 14.05.2013. Dr. Sudhir
Shukla (PW-7) posted in District Hospital Chhindwara examined the
victim when he was brough to the Hospital in poor and unconscious
condition. The MLC report (Exhibit-P/10) reflects that the boy had
swelling behind his right pinna and some abrasions. Dr. L.N. Sahu (PW-
9) had conducted the post-mortem of child on the next day i.e.
15.05.2013 and his report (Exhibit-P/8) suggests no injuries behind the
right ear of deceased as he found injuries only on the frontal part of face
which were swellings on forehead and right side of face and abrasions on
the upper and lower lips. He found fracture in frontoparietal bone on
right side and opined that child died on account of hypoxia due to head
injury.
7 . From the above, it is clear that the medical evidence is not
consistent about the injuries caused to victim. Injuries on upper and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20937
4 CRA-888-2014
lower lips were in the nature of abrasions and would have been very
much visible when victim was examined in alive condition by Dr. Sudhir
Shukla (PW-7), but there is no explanation about omission of these
injuries in MLC report. What is further significant is that, Dr. L.N. Sahu
(PW-9) has admitted to the suggestion that injury found at the time of
post-mortem examination could have been caused, if the victim had
fallen from a height of 4 - 4½ feet. This opinion becomes further
relevant in the light of fact that victim did not suffer injury on any other
part of his body which would have obviously been there if he was
forcibly thrown on the ground.
8 . It is argued by learned counsel for appellant that complainant -
Sevanti was the only eye-witness to the alleged incident, but her
testimony is not consistent and for this her statements have been perused
carefully. In para-1 of her examination-in-chief, Sevanti (PW-2) has
stated that she was in the house of appellant - Arvind Dhurve and her
child was sleeping on the bed-table inside the house from where he fell
off and dashed against the table lying nearby. She further discloses that
Rohit had sustained injury in head on account of this fall. She was
declared hostile and was suggested leading questions by prosecution
during which she admitted in para-5 that appellant had first given beating
to Rohit with hands and then threw him on the ground. In this part of
testimony, she also admits that after this episode she happened to see
Rohit in her parental house and was told by her sister Reshmi Bai that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20937
5 CRA-888-2014
Savita had brought him there, and he was injured and sleeping since then.
Statements of Sevanti (PW-2) again take a twist and in para-8 during her
cross-examination when she admits to the suggestion that Rohit sustained
injuries by falling from the bed-table on to a bench lying nearby. She
has also admitted at this stage that she was not present at the time of this
incident and had gone out for work. Further, she claims to have been told
by her sister Reshmai Bai that Rohit had fallen of the bed-table and
sustained these injuries.
9. From above statements of Sevanti (PW-2), the mother of deceased,
cannot be believed on the fact that appellant had first assaulted his child
Rohit and then threw him forcibly on the ground causing fatal injuries.
1 0 . According to Sevanti (PW-2), she too was assaulted by appellant
before Rohit was snatched from her and was thrown on the ground and
this made her to flee away and go to her parental village where she
informed her father, mother and sister about the incident. Let us examine
what these other witnesses have to say on the incident.
11. Sajilal (PW-3) is the father of Sevanti and he is silent upon the
information allegedly given by complainant - Sevanti. Manota Bai (PW-
4) is the cousin of appellant, but she too is not stable on her testimony
and has admitted in her cross-examination that she was told both by
Sevanti and her father Sajilal that Rohit sustained injuries when he fell of
bed-table. Kamoli Bai (PW-5) is completely ignorant about the incident
and has only testified about the relationship between appellant and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20937
6 CRA-888-2014
Reshmi Bai, the elder sister of complainant - Sevanti. This relationship
is not a fact in issue in this case.
12. Anita (PW-12) is also the real sister of complainant - Sevanti, who
has stated that at around 10:00-10:30 a.m., Sevanti came and told her that
she was assaulted by appellant - Arvind Dhurve and her son Rohit was
thrown on the ground by appellant. This witness claims that almost two
hours later Savita brought Rohit to their house and thereafter left. In
cross-examination, she admits that both Savita and Sevanti had arrived at
the same time and not one after the other. This admission fundamentally
robes the credibility of her testimony.
13. Reshmi Bai (PW-10) is elder sister of complainant - Sevanti. Her
examination-in-chief creates confusion as she makes a claim that
"Sevanti came to her house, while leaving the child in her own house and
told this witness that child has passed away; she left on Monday and did
not inform anything else." Further, this witness says that child had fever
and had fallen of the bed. This witness too was given suggestions during
the course of putting leading questions by prosecution suggesting that
witness was informed by Sevanti that appellant had thrown the child on
the floor causing him fatal injuries, but when cross-examined by the
appellant side, she has admitted that she was not present when this
incident happened and therefore was not aware how the child sustained
injuries. She has also denied to have been informed by Sevanti that Rohit
had fallen off the bed. From this inconsistent testimony, one may become
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20937
7 CRA-888-2014
perplexed as to which part to be believed and which part to be
discarded. Accordingly, statements of Reshmi Bai (PW-10) have no
convincing and sterling value.
14. Smt. Samalvati (PW-11), the mother of Sevanti, is also a hearsay
witness and, therefore, her testimony has no probative value.
15. From the statements of prosecution witnesses, it appears that they
were informed by Sevanti that Rohit was thrown on the floor by
appellant, but it needs to be pondered over that if said information was
given by Sevanti at around 10:00-10:30 a.m. why did they not visit the
house of appellant immediately and take measures to rescue the child or
secure immediate medical help to him. The non-action on their part
suggests that they were not informed of any violence committed by
appellant to the young child.
16. From the testimony of Manota Bai (PW-4), it is established that
complainant - Sevanti had earlier lodged a report of rape against
appellant. Though the period of lodging this report is not disclosed in her
testimony, but from the entire evidence it is clear that the relationship of
Sevanti with appellant was very strained. Some of the witnesses have
also claimed that appellant had developed relationship with another
woman named Savita and this was the cause of bickering between the
appellant and the complainant. In the light of this animosity between the
two sides, we find it inconceivable to hold the appellant guilty of any
offence particularly when the testimony given by other prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20937
8 CRA-888-2014
witnesses is also highly inconsistent, hearsay and unworthy of credit.
17. On the basis of arguments heard and considered and in the light of
the evidence available on record, we allow this appeal and acquit the
appellant of charge of Section 302 IPC. Appellant is in custody, he shall
be released immediately, if his custody is not required in any other case.
Fine amount deposited by appellant, if any, be refunded to him.
18. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court
alongwith the record for necessary compliance and information.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sjk/ps
