Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21553
1 CRA-2380-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2380 of 2012
MANOJ SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amber Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anuradha Shukla
Appellant herein is convicted of offence of Section 302 IPC for the
murder of his wife Ansuiya and has been sentenced to life imprisonment
with fine amount of Rs.1,000/- alongwith default stipulation under the
judgment passed on 12.09.2012 by Session Judge Dindori (M.P.) in S.T.
No.09/2012. His application for suspension of sentence, I.A. No.5169/2024
is pending, but with the consent of the parties, this criminal appeal of the
year 2012 has been heard finally.
2. Facts relevant for the decision of this appeal are that on 05.10.2011,
complainant - Shiv Dayal i.e., the elder brother of appellant, was informed
by neighbour Balloo Dhimar @ Sandeep that the house of appellant was
latched from inside but screams of his wife - Anusuiya Bai were heard in the
house of Balloo Dhimar @ Sandeep, thereupon he came out and found that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21553
2 CRA-2380-2012
in the closed doors of house, appellant was assaulting his wife with lathi.
Admittedly, on the preceding night, Ankush Kumar, the son of appellant had
slept in the house of complainant - Shiv Dayal. On receiving this
information, all the family members went to the house of appellant and found
that the door of the house was open and Anusuiya Bai was lying there with
fresh injuries on her head, cheek, abdomen etc.. They brought her to the
hospital where sometime later she was declared dead. On information of
Shiv Dayal, dehati nalishi regarding offence of Section 302 of IPC was
written and marg intimation was also registered. Enquiry was held and later
FIR was registered on the date of incident itself i.e., 05.10.2011 at Crime
No.132/2011. After conclusion of investigation the charge-sheet was filed
and after holding trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a submission that it is a case
of no evidence; although the matter is claimed to have been based upon
circumstantial evidence, that too is not proved as no one had seen the
appellant inside the house where the victim was physically assaulted; there is
no evidence regarding last seen theory; the testimony of prosecution
witnesses merely suggests that on account of earlier bickerings and quarrels
between the appellant and his wife, he was named as assailant; though, a
gamcha and baniyan (Exhibits-E/1 and E-2) allegedly recovered from
appellant have tested positive for presence of human blood, but mere
presence of human blood cannot establish that the blood recovered belonged
to deceased, as there is no report regarding the detection of blood group and
matching it with the blood group of deceased.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21553
3 CRA-2380-2012
4. State is opposing the appeal on the ground that, prosecution witnesses
Rakesh Sahu (PW-3) and Manoj Sahu (PW-8), who were the real brothers of
deceased; Shiv Dayal (PW-5), Prahalad Sahu (Pw-6) and Annu Sahu (PW-
7), who are the real brothers of appellant, Vidyavati (PW-9), who is the
mother of deceased and Ankush Kumar (PW-12), who is the son of deceased,
have supported the prosecution story to considerable extent. The FSL report
is also positive in essence and to some extent the statements of Kunti Bai
(PW-1) and Balloo Dhimar @ Sandeep (PW-2) give strength to the
prosecution story. A request has therefore been made to dismiss the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and the record of
learned trial Court has been perused.
6. Dehati nalishi (Exhibit-P/7) is recorded on the information of Shiv Dayal,
the brother of appellant and the time of recording this information is 06:45
a.m. on 05.10.2011. This dehati nalishi merely reveals that in the intervening
night of 04 & 05.10.2011 only appellant and his wife Anusuiya Bai were in
the house, while their son Ankush Kumar was gone out and stayed in that
night in the house of complainant - Shiv Dayal. This dehati nalishi also
reveals that when the relatives of appellant on receiving the information from
Balloo Dhimar @ Sandeep, reached to the house of appellant, the door was
open and Anusuiya Bai was lying on the floor in injured state. These facts
reveal that no one had seen the appellant with his wife either in the night or
even in the next morning.
7. Balloo Dhimar @ Sandeep (PW-2) is a witness regarding whom
complainant - Shiv Dayal has claimed that information about the incident
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21553
4 CRA-2380-2012
was given by this person, but he is a hostile witness. He was asked leading
question still could not support the prosecution case. He has only testified
that he heard the crying of a woman in the house of appellant, but he could
not disclose whether that woman was Anusuiya Bai, and who was with that
woman inside the house. He is even silent on the fact that the house was
latched from inside when he heard that crying.
8. Kunti Bai (PW-1) is the other neighbour of appellant, but she too is silent
on the fact that Anusuiya Bai was physically assaulted by appellant or this
witness saw the appellant with Ansuiya Bai shortly before the incident or
even thereafter.
9. Prosecution has examined complainant - Shiv Dayal as PW-5, he admits
to have been informed by Balloo Dhimar @ Sandeep, the neighbour of
appellant, about the loud voice of shouting coming from the house of
appellant which later subsided. This witness also admits that upon being
informed by Balloo Dhimar @ Sandeep, he alongwith his brothers and son
of appellant went to the place of incident where the door was open, Anusuiya
Bai was lying unconscious, she was having bleeding injury on head and was
not saying anything only blubbering and whining. These statements do not
prove, even to the least, that appellant had assaulted his wife Anusuiya Bai
and was responsible for the injuries sustained by her.
10. Prahalad Sahu (PW-6) and Annu Sahu (PW-7) are the real brothers of
appellant who too had arrived on the spot upon receiving the information
from Balloo Dhimar @ Sandeep, but their testimony does not establish
anything beyond, that was revealed by complainant - Shiv Dayal and already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21553
5 CRA-2380-2012
discussed here.
1 1 . Rakesh Sahu (PW-3) & Manoj Sahu (PW-6), the real brothers of
deceased and Vidyavati (PW-9), the mother of deceased, were not present at
the scene of crime, nor reached there immediately after the information given
by Balloo Dhimar @ Sandeep. Therefore, they are only hearsay witnesses
on the facts relating to commission of murder.
12. Ankush Kumar (PW-12) is the son of appellant and deceased. His
testimony could have been very significant to establish the story of last seen,
but his statements reveal that he left the house at 07:00 p.m. on preceding
evening to attend the dance programme and at 12:00 in night he went from
the venue of dance programme straight away to the house of his relative Shiv
Dayal and slept there overnight. He though claims that in the morning, he
went to his house upon the information of Balloo Dhimar @ Sandeep, but he
does not claim the presence of appellant there. He only claims that he saw
his mother lying on the floor in unconscious and injured state.
13. From the above, it can be inferred that no prosecution witnesses had
seen the appellant with deceased either at the time of incident itself or in near
proximity of time. Incidentally, most of then have claimed that relationship
of appellant with his wife was very strained and their son Ankush Kumar
(PW-12) and Shiv Dayal (PW-5), the brother of appellant have even claimed
that appellant used to have mental issues at times but contentious issue is
whether, previous bickering or strained relationship of appellant with his
wife is sufficient evidence to hold him guilty of murder of his wife when
there is no other piece of evidence to suggest this.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21553
6 CRA-2380-2012
14. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the golden principles were
laid down by the Apex Court in Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 holding that following conditions must be
fulfilled:-
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be established;
(ii) the facts so established, should be consistent with the hypothesis
of the guilt and the accused, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to
be proved; and
(v) there must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.
15. Developing these golden principles further the Apex Court held in the
case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
1984 AIR 1622 that prosecution must prove every link of chain and complete
the chain; infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by false
defence of plea and a person cannot be convicted on pure 'moral conviction'.
The Apex Court also considered the doctrine of proximity applicable in
cases of circumstantial evidence and held in the case of Onkar Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in 1974 CRILJ 1200 that "the circumstances must
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21553
7 CRA-2380-2012
have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence and they can only
include the acts done when and where the death was caused." Thus, a
statement merely suggesting motive for a crime cannot be admitted in
evidence unless it is intimately connected with the transaction itself as to be
a circumstance of the transaction.
16. The forgoing discussion takes us to the conclusion that past animosity or
bickering between the appellant and his wife are not sufficient to indict him
in this case. The other evidence in favour of prosecution story is the FSL
report which has confirmed human blood on the clothes of appellant, but
without exercise of matching the group of blood stains, this piece of
evidence cannot be used individualistically as substantial basis for
conviction.
17. Having considered the submissions made here by both the sides and also
the evidence available on record of the trial Court, this Court arises at the
conclusion that prosecution has not been able to establish either by direct or
circumstantial evidence that appellant has any role in the murder of his wife.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed
upon the appellant by the learned trial Court is set aside and the appellant is
acquitted.
18. The appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in
any other case. The fine amount deposited by the appellant, if any, be
refunded to him.
19. The direction given by the trial court regarding disposal of property shall
be complied with.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21553
8 CRA-2380-2012
20. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
21. Let the record of the learned trial Court be sent back alongwith the copy
of this judgment for necessary compliance and information.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sjk
