Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhodai @ Bahlu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23065
1 CRA-1952-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1952 of 2013
BHODAI @ BAHLU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Baderiya - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Smt. Anuradha Shukla
Though this criminal appeal is listed for hearing on I.A. No.12925/2022, which
is an application for seeking suspension of sentence and bail, filed on behalf of
appellant no.1 Bhodai alias Bahlu and appellant no.2 Ramprasad, but with the consent
of parties the appeal has been finally heard on merits.
2. The appellants herein stand convicted under the judgment passed on 13.6.2013 by
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, district Betul, in Sessions Trial No.66/2012
for the offence of committing murders of Ladda and Manglu and they both are
sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- along with default clause under
each count of Section 302/34 IPC.
3. The prosecution story that may be summed up as in brief is that on 6.2.2012 at
around 9:30 p.m. Ladda and his son Manglu had gone to their field while complainant
Rukmani Bai, the wife of Ladda, was in her house; she was told by nephew Debak
(Santosh) that appellants have assaulted Ladda and Manglu with wooden sticks and
stone; on hearing this, she reached to the place of incident where she found that both
the appellants were assaulting Ladda and Manglu, who already had injuries on their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23065
2 CRA-1952-2013
heads, hands and legs; complainant Rukmani Bai asked for the reason of this assault,
but appellants did not assign any reason; Ladda and his son Manglu both were on the
ground; their relatives called for the Kotwar , informed him about the incident and then
both the injured were taken in a tractor first to Bodkhi Chowki where a report was
lodged and later to the hospital; Ladda died in Amla Hospital while Manglu was
referred to Betul Hospital where he expired on next day; marg intimations were
recorded after receiving information from hospital regarding the deaths of Ladda and
Manglu; on the basis of enquiry, an FIR was registered at Crime No.58/2012. The
investigation was undertaken and upon its conclusion, the charge-sheet was filed
against appellants. They both faced the trial and were convicted and sentenced as
aforesaid.
4. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that appellants were also charged
with the offence of Sections 294 and 506 Part II IPC, but on those counts they were
acquitted, while on same set of evidence they stand convicted of the offence of Section
302/34 (two counts) IPC; it is submitted that if the statements of prosecution witnesses
were not reliable and appellants were accordingly acquitted of some of the charges,
then how the same evidence could have led to their conviction; it is contended that the
presence of alleged eyewitnesses, namely Rukmani Bai (P.W.1), the wife of deceased
Ladda, and Thepa alias Santosh (P.W.2), at the time of incident is highly suspicious; no
scientific evidence was collected to show that appellants were involved in the
commission of this crime of double murder; although two wooden sticks were
allegedly seized from the appellants, but the report received from Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) for examination of blood-stains was never produced in evidence;
more so, there is no remark about presence of blood-stains on these articles even in
seizure memo, which are Exs.P-5 and P-7. A submission has therefore been made that,
in the absence of corroboration by any scientific or independent evidence, the appeal
should be allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23065
3 CRA-1952-2013
5. State has opposed the appeal claiming that no indulgence is warranted in this case
of double murder where there is direct testimony available against the appellants.
6. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and the record has been
perused.
7. Rukmani Bai (P.W.1) is the wife of deceased Ladda and mother of deceased
Manglu, who had reported the matter to Police Chowki, Bodkhi, district Betul, on
7.2.2012 at 1:30 a.m. disclosing that on preceding night i.e. 6.2.2012 at around 9:30
p.m. appellants launched an assault on Ladda and Manglu when they were on a visit to
their agriculture field. This report is Ex.P-22 and Ex.P-25 is the FIR which was
registered in Police Station, Amla, at Crime No.58/2012 on the basis of information of
Ex.P-22.
8. Exs.P-22 and P-25 both reveal that complainant Rukmani Bai was informed by her
nephew Thepa alias Santosh about this assault and upon receiving this information, she
went to the place of incident where Ladda and Manglu were lying with injuries on their
heads. These reports reveal that the appellants too were present on spot and when
questioned by complainant about the reason for the assault, they both gave filthy
abuses to Rukmani Bai and threatened her of life if she reported the matter to the
police. Incidentally, both the appellants have been acquitted of the charges of giving
filthy abuses and life threats to Rukmani Bai.
9. In the aforesaid backdrop of facts, first we have to examine whether Rukmani Bai
saw the appellants on spot. Para 7 of her cross-examination discloses that the place of
incident is at a distance of 15-20 minutes away from her house if one covers this
distance by running. If we accept the truth of this fact, then the equation which
emerges is that Thepa alias Santosh first had to cover this much distance to give
information to Rukmani Bai and then Rukmani Bai too had to travel the same distance
to reach the place of occurrence. Thus, the time assessment for travelling to and fro this
distance comes out to be not lesser than 30-40 minutes even if one covers this distance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23065
4 CRA-1952-2013
by running. It seems improbable that after committing murder of two persons, the
appellants remained present on the spot for such a long time until Rukmani Bai reached
there. It is not disclosed why they stayed there for such a long time or which thing was
holding them there.
10. To show her presence at the scene of occurrence, before the appellants could
have left it, Rukmani Bai (P.W.1) has stated that she asked the appellants to give
reason for their act. In FIR (Ex.P-22) she discloses that instead of giving any answer to
her question, the appellants started giving filthy abuses to her and even threatened her
of dire consequences, but in her court testimony, recorded as P.W.1, she contradicts
this fact and says that appellants did not reply her. It is true that this contradiction was
not placed by defence before her for seeking explanation but it can also not be ignored
here that Thepa alias Santosh in para 4 of his cross-examination has very clearly
mentioned that complainant Rukmani Bai (P.W.1) did not have any conversation with
appellants as they had already left the place by the time Rukmani Bai arrived and also
there was no other person present. It appears that similar kind of averment was made
by this witness in earlier part of para 4, though this part of the paper is damaged for
being partially missing. Still, the incomplete sentence creates an impression that the
witness was intending to say that "by the time Chachi (Rukmani Bai) arrived, the
appellants had fled". In this state of facts, it cannot be believed that on arrival at the
scene of occurrence, Rukmani Bai had an encounter with appellants and she had put
any question to them and this leaves her statement highly unbelievable.
11. The spot-map (Ex.P-1) reveals that the place of incident, marked by sign "1", is at
some distance from the houses of Ramprasad Korku, Kishan Korku and Bishan Korku.
The houses of Kishan Korku and Bishan Korku are marked by sign "3" and they are on
the western-southern side of this map. Kishan Korku is the real brother of deceased
Ladda. The houses of other neighbours are not shown in this map. Thepa alias Santosh
claims that the incident went on for almost an hour and many villagers had gathered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23065
5 CRA-1952-2013
there, but none of these villagers nor even neighbours have been examined as
eyewitness and only close relatives of deceased have supported the prosecution story.
12. Kishan (P.W.3) claims that he heard the noise while he was still inside the house
and after coming out he found that appellants were hitting Ladda and Manglu with
lathis (wooden sticks). It is not disclosed in his testimony why he did not intervene in
this assault when his close relatives were being belaboured. This witness is father of
Thepa alias Santosh who too claims that he saw the incident. It is strange that both
Kishan and Thepa alias Santosh made no efforts to stop the assault or take measures to
protect their close relatives and this unusual behaviour perhaps finds explanation in
para 4 of cross-examination of Kishan (P.W.3). He claims therein that Thepa alias
Santosh was not in the village when this assault was going on. He further clarifies that
the incident was seen by him alone and not by his son Thepa alias Santosh. Even in
cross-examination he does not testify to the presence of Thepa alias Santosh when the
assault was going on. His testimony, thus, renders the statement of Thepa alias Santosh
unreliable on the point of witnessing the incident personally.
13. Bhala (P.W.4) is the Kotwar, who claims to have arrived on the spot after
receiving the information and he does not confirm the presence of appellants on the
spot. The other witnesses from public are Bishan (P.W.5), Gopal (P.W.6), Imrat
(P.W.7), Vinod (P.W.8) and Somji (P.W.10) and they are related only to various
investigation proceedings. Similarly, other official witnesses and witnesses from police
force have testified to various proceedings held during marg enquiry/crime
investigation and their testimony gives no strength to the facts alleged by prosecution
against the appellants.
14. From the prosecution evidence, it is evident that only close relatives of deceased
persons have supported the prosecution story. The question arises whether these
interested witnesses, namely Rukmani Bai (P.W.1), Thepa alias Santosh (P.W.2) and
Kishan (P.W.3) have given testimony of such quality that inspires confidence. From the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23065
6 CRA-1952-2013
face value of their claims, it appears that all the three were present on spot; two of
them, namely Kishan and Thepa alias Santosh, witnessed the incident personally while
Rukmani Bai arrived there immediately after the assault was stopped, but appellants
were still present and she had an encounter with them. On going deeper into the truth of
their testimony, it is found that all these three witnesses have contradicted one another
regarding their presence on spot. Thepa alias Santosh claims that by the time Rukmani
Bai arrived on spot, appellants had fled away; Kishan claims that Thepa alias Santosh
was out of village when this incident of assault was going on and Thepa alias Santosh
does not give any corroboration to the fact that Kishan was present at the time of
assault. In para 4 of cross-examination, Thepa alias Santosh gave an explanation, why
he did not intervene and his answer was "if I had intervened, wouldn't I have died?".
Further, Kishan claims that he had sent Thepa alias Santosh to summon Rukmani Bai,
but Thepa alias Santosh denies it too in para 4 of his cross-examination.
15. The aforesaid facts relate to the transaction during the course of commission of
crime and they are not relatable to any previous or subsequent or even ancillary set of
events. Thus, these contradictions observed in the testimony of close relatives of
deceased are of palpable significance and render their testimony unworthy of credit.
16. It has already been mentioned that the FSL report showing the use of weapons
allegedly seized from the appellants has not been produced in evidence. This
withholding of significant evidence itself shows that FSL report was definitely not
having any adverse result against the appellants.
17. In view of arguments submitted and considered and also on the basis of facts and
evidence appreciated hereinbefore, we are of considered opinion that the prosecution
has not been able to establish the guilt of appellants through any independent, credible
and scientific evidence. Therefore, we allow this criminal appeal and acquit the
appellants of the charge under Section 302/34 (two counts) of IPC.
18. The appellants are in custody. They be released forthwith, if not wanted in any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23065
7 CRA-1952-2013
other case. The fine amount deposited by the appellants, if any, be refunded to them.
19. The seized property shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions given
by trial court.
20. Let a copy of this judgment along with its record be send to the trial court for
information and necessary compliance. A copy of the same be also send to the
concerned jail authorities for ensuring immediate release of appellants in terms of
directions given.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ps
