Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghurhu Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52517
1 CRA-2800-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2800 of 2025
GHURHU KEWAT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Sohgaura - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Heard on I.A.No.11430/2025, which is first application under Section
389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal of the aforesaid
application.
3. I.A.No.11430/2025 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally
heard.
5. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is filed being aggrieved
of judgment dated 11.2.2025 passed by learned V Additional Sessions Judge-
Deosar, District Singrauli in Sessions Trial No.60/2020 convicting the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52517
2 CRA-2800-2025
appellant Nos.1 to 5 & 7 for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149, 450 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C") and convicting the appellant
No.6 for the offence under Sections 148, 302, 450 of the I.P.C and
sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years,
imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of
Rs.5,000/-, 50,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, three years and two years
respectively with a further direction to run all the jail sentences concurrently.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants
are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of
family rivalry over land dispute as admitted by Neela Kewat (PW.1) and
Geetadevi Kewat (PW.5). It is a case of over implication in the hands of the
prosecution. In the FIR (Exhibit P/28), the names of only five persons are
mentioned and they are Ravishankar @ Dadan Kewat, Ramakant Kewat,
Sonu @ Rakesh Kewat, Ghurhu Kewat and Dhramraj @ Babal Kewat and
the names of two other accused persons, namely, Dashwanti Kewat and Lala
Kewat are not mentioned in the FIR (Exhibit P/28) or in the Dehati Nalisi
(Exhibit P/1) but learned Trial Court has recorded finding of conviction
against all the appellants, which is contrary to the evidence available on
record.
7. Reading from the testimony of the author of Dehati Nalisi (Exhibit P/1)
i.e.Neela Kewat (PW.1), an eye-witness to the incident, it is pointed out by
learned counsel for the appellants that in Paragraph No.5 of her testimony,
this witnesses categorically states that "it is true to say that she had only seen
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52517
3 CRA-2800-2025
Ravishankar and had not seen anybody else. It is true to say that on account
of the land dispute, I have mentioned the names of other persons in the FIR
(Exhibit P/28) and also in my statement. It is true to say that Ghurhu is not a
person of my village but is related to the accused Ravishankar, therefore, his
name has been mentioned in the FIR (Exhibit P/28)".
8. Reading from the testimony of Geetadevi Kewat (PW.5), whose
presence has been shown by Neela Kewat (PW.1) in the house where the
incident took place, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that
this witness admits in Paragraph No.2 of her cross-examination that when the
incident took place, she was sleeping with her son Amar Kumar in her room.
She had not opened the gate. She also states that when she heard the noise of
firing, she had reached the room i.e. the place of the incident where her
Nanad Neela and Rajesh were sleeping. She saw Rajesh Kewat lying on a
Cot and the assailants were not present in the said room.
9 . Under such circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the finding of conviction recorded by learned Trial Court is based on
surmises and conjectures as learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the
evidence in correct perspective. The said finding needs to be reversed by
allowing the present appeal and setting aside the judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court.
10. Learned Government Advocate for the State in his turn submits that
there is corroboration in the testimony of Neela Kewat (PW.1) inasmuch as
the fire shots were recovered from the dead body of the deceased Rajesh
Kewat and they were said to be fired through a smooth bore firearm. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52517
4 CRA-2800-2025
aforesaid fact is mentioned in the State Forensic Science Laboratory Report
as contained in Exhibit P/26. He, however, supports the impugned judgment
and prays for dismissal of the present appeal filed by the appellants.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
12. Neela Kewat (PW.1) is the star prosecution witness as she had seen the
incident. She categorically narrates that it was Ravishankar, who had entered
their room with a firearm and had fired a gunshot on the body of the
deceased Rajesh Kewat. She also states that she had seen Ravishankar firing
gunshot on the head of the deceased Rajesh Kewat in the light of the bulb,
which was on at the time of the incident. She admits in Paragraph No.5 of
her cross-examination that the name of Ghurhu Kewat is reported because he
happens to be relative of Ravishankar though Ghurhu Kewat is not resident
of the same village. She also admits in Paragraph No.5 of her cross-
examination that except for Ravishankar, she had not seen any other accused
persons. This witness admits the aspect of land rivalry. She further admits
that there are four houses around her house belonging to Rajan Kewat, Kashi
Naresh, Arjun Kewat & Sarju Kewat and she had informed the police
personnel that there was a land dispute with the accused persons.
13. Dr.Vijay Pratap Singh (PW.9) has rebutted the suggestion of the
prosecution as was given to Neela Kewat (PW.1) so also to this doctor that it
was a case of suicide. Below Paragraph No.5 of his cross-examination, a
categorical question was put to Dr.Vijay Pratap Singh (PW.9) that if some
person resorts to use of a firearm by placing it on the earlobe then the injury,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52517
5 CRA-2800-2025
which was caused and found on the body of the deceased Rajesh Kewat
during postmortem could have been caused and Dr.Vijay Pratap Singh
(PW.9) has categorically answered that such injury as was found during the
postmortem could not have been caused under the said circumstances. Thus,
the defence story that it was a case of suicide has been belied by the
postmortem doctor i.e.Dr.Vijay Pratap Singh (PW.9).
14. The appellant No.6 Ravishankar @ Dadan Kewat took a plea of alibi
that he was admitted in the hospital at the time of the incident but that plea of
alibi could not be substantiated through any cogent evidence available on
record.
15. When all these facts are taken into consideration conjoining them with
the testimony of Geetadevi Kewat (PW.5), sister-in-law of Neela Kewat
(PW.1), an another person, who was present in the house where the incident
took place then it is apparent that Geetadevi Kewat (PW.5) had not seen the
incident taking place. She had even not seen Ravishankar as an assailant. She
had not seen any other accused persons.
16. Thus, it is evident that learned Trial Court has committed a grave error
in recording the finding of conviction against both women accused persons
i.e. the appellant No.3 Dashwanti Kewat and the appellant No.5 Lala Kewat,
without there names being mentioned in the FIR (Exhibit P/28) and there
being no explanation for the omission of their names in the FIR (Exhibit
P/28) especially when it is not a case of the prosecution that these two ladies,
namely, Dashwanti Kewat and Lala Kewat were not known to the informer
i.e.Neela Kewat (PW.1).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52517
6 CRA-2800-2025
17. Learned Trial Court has also committed an error in appreciating the
evidence although Neela Kewat (PW.1) and Geetadevi Kewat (PW.5) were
reexamined but in totality, nothing substantial has come out on record of
their testimony. In Paragraph No.29 of the impugned judgment, learned Trial
Court has though discussed a fact that Neela Kewat (PW.1) during her
testimony admitted that she had not opened the gate and also admitted that
she had not come outside her house, therefore, there was no occasion for her
to witness the other accused persons but arbitrarily that suggestion and
relevant portion of the cross-examination has been overlooked by learned
Trial Court, which leaves lot of doubt about the capacity of the Trial Court
while appreciating the evidence in correct perspective.
18. When totality of facts and circumstances are taken into consideration
and especially the testimony of sole eye-witness Neela Kewat (PW.1) though
defence has given a suggestion to her that Rajesh Kewat had brought a Katta
from Allahabad and he committed suicide but that suggestion has neither
been substantiated nor proved beyond reasonable doubt then the prosecution
story that Ravishankar had entered the house and caused gunshot fire on the
body of the deceased Rajesh Kewat, stands proved as there are no omissions
or contradictions with regard to the testimony of Neela Kewat (PW.1).
19. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Trial Court has wrongly recorded a finding of conviction against the
appellant No.1 Ghurhu Kewat, the appellant No.2 Dhramraj @ Babal Kewat,
the appellant No.3 Dashwanti Kewat, the appellant No.4 Ramakant Kewat,
the appellant No.5 Lala Kewat and the appellant No.7 Sonu @ Rakesh Kewat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52517
7 CRA-2800-2025
despite there being no evidence of the sole eye-witness Neela Kewat (PW.1)
or any other corroborative evidence to show their presence at the scene of
crime.
20. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 11.2.2025 passed by
learned V Additional Sessions Judge-Deosar, District Singrauli in Sessions
Trial No.60/2020 as regards the appellant No.1 Ghurhu Kewat, the appellant
No.2 Dhramraj @ Babal Kewat, the appellant No.3 Dashwanti Kewat, the
appellant No.4 Ramakant Kewat, the appellant No.5 Lala Kewat and the
appellant No.7 Sonu @ Rakesh Kewat is set aside as their conviction is
based on surmises and conjectures and present is a case of no evidence
against them. The appellant No.1 Ghurhu Kewat, the appellant No.2
Dhramraj @ Babal Kewat, the appellant No.3 Dashwanti Kewat, the
appellant No.4 Ramakant Kewat, the appellant No.5 Lala Kewat and the
appellant No.7 Sonu @ Rakesh Kewat are in jail. They be set at liberty
forthwith if not required in any other case.
21. The finding of conviction recorded by learned Trial Court against the
appellant No.6 Ravishankar @ Dadan Kewat is based on cogent material
available on record, which needs to be upheld as there are no omissions or
contradictions in the testimony of Neela Kewat (PW.1), the sole eye-witness
to the incident and accordingly his conviction for the offence under Sections
148, 302, 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is maintained. The appellant
No.6 Ravishankar @ Dadan Kewat is in jail. He is directed to undergo
remaining part of his jail sentence.
22. In above terms, this appeal is disposed of.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52517
8 CRA-2800-2025
23. The case property be disposed of as per the directions of learned Trial
Court.
24. Record be sent back forthwith.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
