Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rikesh Urf Guddu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
1 CRA-3618-2025
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 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3618 of 2025
DEEPAK @ GOLU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate and Shri Irfan Khan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Government Advocate for State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5236 of 2025
RIKESH URF GUDDU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt.Archana Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Heard on I.A.No.15469/2025 and I.A.No.12906/2025, which are first
applications filed 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
2 CRA-3618-2025
appellant Deepak @ Golu in Criminal Appeal No.3618/2025 and the
appellant Rikesh @ Guddu in Criminal Appeal No.5236/2025.
2. Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate and Smt.Archana Tiwari, Advocate for
the appellants pray for withdrawal of the aforesaid applications.
3. I.A.No.15469/2025 and I.A.No.12906/2025 are accordingly dismissed
as withdrawn.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals are
finally heard.
5. These appeals are filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 12.3.2025
passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Balaghat in SCATR No.129/2019 convicting the appellants, namely, Deepak
@ Golu and Rikesh @ Guddu Padwar for the offence under Sections 302/34
& 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C") and sentencing
them to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for one
year with fine of Rs.1,000/- & Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of
fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous
imprisonment for three months respectively with a further direction to run
both the jail sentences concurrently.
6. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.10.2019, a dead body was
found in a minor canal situated at Village Dadiya which on investigation was
found to be the dead body of Subhash Ladhiya. The Dehati Merg Intimation
No.0/2019 was recorded by the complainant Ruplal Ladhiya S/o.Mohanlal
Ladhiya at Police Station Bhedaghat, District Jabalpur for the offence under
Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. On reaching the police station, the actual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
3 CRA-3618-2025
Merg No.66/2019 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C was registered.
7. In Dehati Nalisi, the complainant Ruplal had informed that he is resident
of Village Sahajpur under Police Station Bhedaghat, District Jabalpur. He is
having vocation of preparation of brooms. Every year, they visit Lalbarra
area to collect ''Chhind Ki Patti'' which is used in preparation of the brooms.
On 7.10.2019, Ruplal, Sumit Jharia, Subhash Ladhiya had visited Lalbarra
from Jabalpur. At about 7:00 PM, when they were proceeding to Village-
Dadiya, at that time, they had met Golu Narbode and his relative Rohit
Meshram at Amoli, who had dropped them on their motorcycle upto Dadiya
Potiyapat Temple. Subhash and Golu had stayed back together. Next day,
Sumit had some work at Jabalpur, therefore, he went back to Jabalpur.
Ruplal came to the house of Golu and asked for whereabouts of Subhash
Ladhiya when he informed him that he had dropped Rohit and Subhash
Ladhiya upto the Village-Bamhni and thereafter he has no idea about the
whereabouts of Subhash. According to Ruplal, he had tried to search for
Subhash at Villages-Dadiya, Bamhni & Lalbarra but he could not trace him
and on 10.10.2019 at about 10:30 AM, the villagers had informed him that a
dead body was lying near the culvert of minor canal and when he had gone
there, he found the body to be that of his nephew Subhash Ladhiya, which
was having injuries on the head and private parts. The neck of the dead body
was tied with a ''Sutli'' and he was in a naked condition. A report of the
incident was lodged that Subhash was murdered through strangulation by
some unknown person and to suppress the death, the dead body was thrown
in the minor canal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
4 CRA-3618-2025
8. It has come on record that during investigation on the basis of suspicion,
Deepak @ Golu Narbode and Rohit Meshram were interrogated, who had
accepted their guilt and then it was stated that Deepak, aged about 25 years,
Juvenile Rohit, aged about 16 years and Rikesh Padwar, aged about 39 years
had met Subhash Ladhiya to consume alcohol and with an intend to Loot
him, they had defrayed Rs.1,800/- and thereafter Subhash Ladhiya was put to
death as per the memorandum statement.
9. On the basis of the memorandum statement, the spot map was prepared.
the dead body of Subhash Ladhiya was sent for postmortem. The caste
certificate of Subhash Ladhiya was obtained. On the basis of memorandum
of Deepak @ Golu, a Lathi used in commission of the offence and a
motorcycle were recovered. A sum of Rs.220/- was also recovered. The
juvenile had produced Rs.110/-, a truncated towel and the blood stained
clothes used in commission of the offence. Rikesh Padwar handed over a
cable wire, the clothes which were worn by him at the time of the incident
and a sum of Rs.200/-.
10. The accused persons were arrested. The charge sheet was filed. When
the accused persons abjured their guilt & pleaded complete innocence, the
trial was conducted and the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced
them for the offence as mentioned in Paragraph No.5 of this judgment.
However, the accused persons have been acquitted from the charges under
Section 302 read with Section 120B of the I.P.C, Section 394 read with
Section 397 of the I.P.C and in the alternative Section 394/397 read with
Section 120B of the I.P.C and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
5 CRA-3618-2025
Atrocities) Act.
11. Shri Sanjay Sharma and Smt.Archana Tiwari, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants submit that present is a case of no evidence. The
evidence of last seen is very weak and feeble. The chain of circumstances is
not complete so to record guilt of the present appellants. The evidence of last
seen is not of the recent origin but looking to the time gap when the deceased
was last seen in the company of the accused persons and the time of death as
written in the postmortem report, the theory of last seen will not be
applicable in the present case. They also point out that though the Cable
Wire Article-A and ''Rassi'' Article-B, recovered from the place of the
incident and the dead body of deceased Subhash Ladhiya respectively were
subjected to the F.S.L examination and on visual or microscopic
examination, it was found that the skin was available on both the articles but
thereafter no DNA testing was performed to point out that the skin was either
that of the deceased or the accused persons. No finger prints were obtained
and it is a case of hearsay evidence, which cannot be a basis for recording
conviction against the appellants, therefore, the impugned judgment dated
12.3.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, Balaghat in SCATR No.129/2019 be set aside.
12. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Government Advocate for the State
submits that there is evidence of last seen and that evidence is quite reliable,
therefore, on the basis of such reliable piece of evidence, conviction of the
appellants as recorded by the learned Trial Court needs to be maintained.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
6 CRA-3618-2025
record.
14. The prosecution has produced the DNA report (Exhibit P/36), which
says that the Lathi, which was recovered on the memorandum of Deepak i.e.
Exhibit-A revealed very low and uninterpretable autosomal STR DNA
profile. Same is the fate of the T-shirt Exhibit-E recovered on the memo of
Deepak. Exhibit-F clothings of the juvenile also revealed very low and
uninterpretable autosomal STR DNA profile. Clothings of the deceased
Exhibit-H revealed very low and uninterpretable autosomal STR DNA
profile. The towel Exhibit-B recovered at the instance of the juvenile and
clothings of Rikesh Padwar Exhibit-G revealed autosomal STR DNA profile
and it was found that the alleles were common on both the Exhibits i.e.
Exhibit-B and Exhibit-G. However, Exhibit-H clothings of the deceased and
Exhibit-G clothings recovered on the memo of Rikesh Padwar revealed very
low and uninterpretable autosomal STR DNA profile, therefore, it is not
possible to match the DNA profile with the towel seized from the juvenile
i.e. Exhibit-B. Similarly, the DNA profile of Exhibit-H could not be matched
with the DNA profile obtained from Exhibit-G, which are clothings of
Rikesh Padwar. Thus, it is evident that the scientific evidence too is not
conclusive.
15. Ruplal (PW.1) states that Deepak @ Golu and Rohit had met them at
Lalbarra. They were on a Passion Pro Motorcycle. Rohit had taken Ruplal
and Sumit on his motorcycle to Potiyaghat. Subhash Ladhiya was in the
company of Deepak @ Golu at Lalbarra. Rohit after dropping Ruplal and
Sumit had returned back to pick Subhash Ladhiya and Deepak @ Golu. This
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
7 CRA-3618-2025
was at about 6:00 PM. Subhash Ladhiya had not reached them. Next day,
Ruplal had sent Sumit to the house of Deepak @ Golu. Deepak @ Golu had
pleaded his ignorance. For three days, Ruplal was in search for Subhash
Ladhiya and thereafter he had gone to Bamhni. When Rikesh had informed
him that a dead body was lying near the Dadiya canal. This witness was
declared hostile and leading questions were put to him. Ruplal (PW.1)
categorically states that the police had not interrogated Rohit Meshram i.e.
the juvenile in front of him. He also states that Deepak was not interrogated
in front of him. This witness has denied preparation of the memorandum
Exhibit P/6 obtained from Rikesh in front of him. He has denied that Rikesh
had given his clothings and Rs.200/- from his pocket, which were in the
denomination of Rs.100/- note and two notes of Rs.50/- each in front of him.
He has also denied seizure of the caste certificate of Subhash Ladhiya.
16. Ruplal (PW.1) in his cross-examination admits that the accused persons
are not known to him. He states that even he does not know as to which
place the accused persons belong to. He further states that he had never met
the accused persons. Ruplal (PW.1) in Paragraph No.13 states that on
7.10.2019, when they had reached Lalbarra, the deceased Subhash Ladhiya
had left their company for some personal work. Subhash had gone alone.
When Subhash Ladhiya did not return, they had gone to Potiyaghat. He also
admits that Subhash Ladhiya and Deepak @ Golu had never met. He further
admits that from 7.10.2019 and 10.10.2019, no missing person report was
lodged. He admits that after the discovery of the dead body, no report was
lodged and no proceedings were drawn by the police personnel in front of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
8 CRA-3618-2025
him. The police had obtained the signatures on a blank paper 4-5 days after
discovery of the dead body. At the time of the incident, Subhash Ladhiya
was under the influence of alcohol and he cannot state as to whether Subhash
Ladhiya died because of consumption of alcohol or he was put to death by
an unknown person. Rikesh is not known to him. The police had not carried
out any proceedings in front of him.
17. Rinku @ Hari Ladhiya (PW.2) states that his brother Shubham was put
to death by the accused persons but in Paragraph No.13, he admits that he
cannot state as to which of the material was recovered from which of the
accused persons while preparation of the seizure memo. He admits that the
police had not prepared the spot map of the places where he had visited
alongwith the police. He admits that in Exhibit D/1, he had given a statement
that when he had reached Lalbarra Police Station alongwith his mother
Sunita and Phupha Ashok Ladhiya then his uncle Ruplal had met them and
had informed that some unknown person had caused the death of his brother
Shubham @ Subhash Ladhiya. Thus, it is evident Rinku @ Hari Ladhiya
(PW.2) is neither a witness of last seen nor he has supported the seizure
memo.
18. Prabhu Uikey (PW.3) is a hearsay witness. He has denied all the
suggestions given by the prosecution after being declared hostile.
19. Mahendra (PW.4) too was declared hostile when he stated that he does
not know anything about the incident.
20. Dr.T.C.Meshram (PW.5) had conducted the postmortem on the dead
body of Shubham @ Subhash and had found that there was a lacerated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
9 CRA-3618-2025
wound on the rear part i.e. occipital region of the head measuring 2.5 inch X
1 inch X 0.5 inch. There was a second lacerated wound measuring 1.5 inch X
1 inch X 1 inch, which was oblique in nature. A rope was tied around the
neck of the dead body but no ligature marks were observed. His report is
Exhibit P/20 and according to the doctor, the death occurred because of
excessive blood loss and rupture of vital organ i.e.brain. The death had taken
place between 60 to 72 hours since postmortem.
21. Shyamabai Kawde (PW.6) states that she has no information about the
incident. She was declared hostile and nothing substantial has come out of
her testimony.
22. Sunita (PW.10) admits in her cross-examination that she had not seen
the incident and she was saying that her son was murdered by the accused
persons as per the statement given by Ruplal to the police. This witness also
admits that she had not seen the incident taking placing in front of her.
23. Assistant Sub Inspector Razik Siddiqui (PW.12) states that as per the
statement of Ruplal, he had lodged Dehati Nalisi at 0/19 against the unknown
person. In cross-examination, he admits that in the Dehati Nalisi and Merg so
also in the Lash Panchayatnama, unknown person is mentioned.
24. Preetam (PW.13), Assistant Secretary of Gram Panchayat Jamuniya,
states that Shubham and Subhash Ladhiya are one and the same person.
25. Sumit Jharia @ Satish (PW.14) has turned hostile and has not even
supported the theory of the last seen.
26. The appellants have taken a defence of false implication in the present
case as the deceased was not known to them.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
10 CRA-3618-2025
27. Thus, when all the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are taken
into consideration then it is evident that except for Ruplal, there is no other
witness of last seen so also there is no eye-witness to the incident. Ruplal
(PW.1) in his cross-examination admits that the accused persons are not
known to him. He also admits that he cannot say as to where the accused
persons are living. He states that he had never met the accused persons. On
7.10.2019, when they had reached Lalbarra then Subhash Ladhiya had left
their company for some work. He further states that Subhash Ladhiya had
gone alone. Thus, the theory of last seen propounded by the star prosecution
witness Ruplal (PW.1) is not made out.
28. Thus, when there is no eye-witness to the incident, the forensic
evidence as contained in the DNA report vide Exhibits P/36 and P/39 being
inconclusive and the chain of circumstances is not complete then in the light
of Paragraph No.153 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda versus State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein it
is observed that "it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not
merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance
between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from
sure conclusions" and the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty taking
into consideration the five golden principles then the theory of last seen
propounded by Ruplal (PW.1) could not be established by the prosecution in
the present case. The prosecution could not prove the connection of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
11 CRA-3618-2025
accused persons through Exhibit-B and Exhibit-G, which were subjected to
the DNA finger printing.
29. Thus, in the present case, when there is neither any eye-witness account
nor any evidence of last seen or any scientific evidence is available to
connect the appellants with the alleged murder then conviction of the
appellants merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.
30. Same is the ratio of law laid down by the Three Judges Bench of the
Apex Court in Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal versus State of Madhya Pradesh
2024 SCC Online SC 2606.
31. When all these facts are taken into consideration then we have no
hesitation to hold that the conviction of the appellants recorded by the
learned Trial Court only on the basis of surmises and conjectures cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.
32. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed.
33. The impugned judgment dated 12.3.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balaghat in SCATR
No.129/2019 is hereby set aside.
34. The appellant Deepak @ Golu in Criminal Appeal No.3618/2025 and
the appellant Rikesh @ Guddu in Criminal Appeal No.5236/2025 are in jail.
They be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
35. The case property be disposed of as per the direction of the learned
Trial Court.
36. Record be sent back forthwith.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50998
12 CRA-3618-2025
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
