Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bihari Lal Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-1241-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1241 of 2025
(BIHARI LAL YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 22-05-2025
Shri Ravindranath Chaturvedi - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the State.
Heard on I.A.No.12270/2025, which is an application for urgent
hearing and hearing during Summer Vacation.
I.A.No.12270/2025 is allowed and disposed of.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal of
I.A.No.12264/2025 for urgent hearing and hearing during Summer Vacation
on the ground that earlier I.A. No.8485/2025 is already pending and,
therefore, the subsequent application is not maintainable.
Accordingly, I.A.No.12264/2025 is dismissed as not maintainable
having been filed in duplicate.
Also heard on I.A.No.8485/2025, which is first application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4,
namely, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Chandravati @ Chandrakali Yadav &
Leelavati Yadav.
This appeal is filed under Sections 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") being aggrieved of judgment dated
18.12.2024 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge Deosar, District
Singrauli in Sessions Trial No.77/2021 convicting the appellant Nos.1 to 3
for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,
2 CRA-1241-2025
1860 (for short "I.P.C") and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for
life and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and
Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous
imprisonment for six months and three months respectively with a further
direction to run all the jail sentences concurrently.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant
No.1 Bihari Lal Yadav is main accused in this case. The dead body of
deceased Taradevi Yadav is received from the common shared house of
Bihari Lal Yadav. The house of Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Chandravati @
Chandrakali Yadav & Leelavati Yadav is separate. PW.10 Meena Yadav
D/o. Taradevi Yadav (deceased) admits in Paragraph No.2 of her cross-
examination that Chandrakali, Pradeep, Bihari had separated from her
mother and made separate houses. PW.10 Meena Yadav also admits that the
partition of land had taken place long back. PW.11 Amrendra Yadav admits
that his mother Taradevi Yadav (deceased) and uncle Bihari were staying in
the same house. PW.11 Amrendra Yadav admits that Chandrakali was living
separately alongwith her children. PW.11 Amrendra Yadav admits that all
were carrying out their agricultural operations separately. PW.11 Amrendra
Yadav admits that he is taking the names of the appellants on the basis of
suspicion. PW.11 Amrendra Yadav admits that he had not seen any incident
with his own eyes.
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that in a case of circumstantial evidence unless and until the chain of
circumstances is so complete pointing out towards the guilt of the appellants
3 CRA-1241-2025
and none else till then, no conviction can be upheld. Hence, prayer is made to
suspend execution of remaining part of the jail sentence of the appellant
Nos.2,3&4 and to release them on bail till final disposal of this appeal.
Learned Government Advocate for the State in his turn submits that
PW1. Mahesh Prasad Yadav & PW.2 Ramesh Yadav have categorically
stated in their testimony that there was smell from the Ahata of the house of
Chandravati @ Chandrakali Yadav and she tried to suppress the evidence of
the incident and, therefore, the chain of circumstances qua the appellant
Nos.2, 3 & 4, namely, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Chandravati @ Chandrakali
Yadav & Leelavati Yadav is also complete. He, therefore, prays for dismissal
of I.A.No.8485/2025.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
All the prosecution witnesses in an unequivocal terms have admitted
that there was a property dispute between Bihari and Taradevi Yadav. The
mother of Bihari i.e. the mother-in-law of Taradevi Yadav had bequeathed
her share of property in favour of Taradevi Yadav upon refusal of Bihari to
serve and nurse her. On account of such bequeathing of share in favour of
the daughter-in-law Taradevi Yadav, there was discord. The dead body of
deceased Taradevi Yadav was recovered from the shared house of Bihari and
the keys of the room in which the dead body of Taradevi Yadav was found,
was locked from outside. The keys of that room were handed over by Bihari.
The Spot Map reveals that the appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4, namely, Pradeep
Kumar Yadav, Chandravati @ Chandrakali Yadav & Leelavati Yadav were
4 CRA-1241-2025
having separate households. There is no recovery of any soil from the Ahata
of Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Chandravati @ Chandrakali Yadav. All the
recoveries are from the house of deceased Taradevi Yadav only.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case
to suspend execution of remaining part of jail sentence of the appellant
Nos.2, 3 & 4, namely, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Chandravati @ Chandrakali
Yadav & Leelavati Yadav and to release them on bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.8485/2025 is allowed. It is directed that on
depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing a
personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
Only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court for their appearance before the Trial Court on 20.8.2025 and on
all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the concerned Court, the execution
of remaining part of the jail sentence of the appellant No.2 Pradeep Kumar
Yadav, the appellant No.3 Chandravati @ Chandrakali Yadav & the
appellant No.4 Leelavati Yadav shall remain suspended and they be released
on bail till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No.8485/2025 stands allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE V. JUDGE
amit
