[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajlal Parte vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25622
1 CRA-141-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 141 of 2016
BRAJLAL PARTE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Reserved on : 11.03.2026
Pronounced on : 01.04.2026.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen
This present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2)
of CrPC by the appellant/accused assailing the impugned judgment dated
21.12.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balaghat, in S.T.
No.264/2014 thereby appellant has been convicted under Sections 302
(on two counts) and 449 of IPC and sentenced to suffer
life imprisonment (on two counts) and R.I. for three years and fine of
Rs.5,000/- (on two counts) and Rs.1000/- respectively with default
stipulations. All sentences to run concurrently.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25622
2 CRA-141-2016
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:-
2.1 The deceased Mansharam lived in his village house with his
daughter, Kantibai (also deceased). The accused, Brajlal Parte, was a
resident of the same village. His wife was frequently ill, and he
suspected that Mansharam had used witchcraft, which he believed
caused her illness. Due to this suspicion, he developed enmity against
Mansharam.
2.2 On 25.06.2014 at about 1:00 PM, the accused Brajlal went to
Mansharam's house carrying an iron axe. In a fit of anger, he assaulted
Mansharam and his daughter Kantibai with the axe, causing their deaths.
After committing the act, he stated that he was going to the police station
and proceeded towards Police Station Gadhi.
2.3 Mansharam's son-in-law, Chhotu Maravi, was informed about the
incident by his younger son, Shyamlal. Upon receiving the information,
Chhotu Maravi went to Mansharam's house and found the dead bodies
of Mansharam and Kantibai. After making inquiries from the
neighbours, he went to Police Station Gadhi along with Budhsingh,
Pratapsingh, and Manoj and lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit
P/1).
2.4 The Station House Officer, Z.F. Ahmed, registered a case under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. An inquest intimation (Exhibit
P/2) was recorded. The investigating officer visited the place of
occurrence and prepared the inquest panchnamas of the dead bodies
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25622
3 CRA-141-2016
(Exhibits P/5 and P/6) in the presence of witnesses. A site map (Exhibit
P/7) was prepared, and blood-stained and plain soil were seized from the
spot.
2.5 During investigation, at about 4:00 PM, the accused disclosed that
he had concealed the axe used in the offence and the blood-stained shirt
worn at the time of the incident in his house. His memorandum
statement (Exhibit P/11) was recorded, and based on his disclosure, the
axe and shirt were recovered in the presence of witnesses under seizure
memo (Exhibit P/12).
2.6 Postmortem examinations of the deceased Mansharam and
Kantibai were conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded, and
after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baihar. The case was committed for trial
and presented before the Sessions Court on 27.09.2014.
2.7 Charges were framed against the accused for the offences
mentioned above. The charges were read over and explained to him, but
he denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment passed
by the trial Court is illegal and contrary to the evidence. It is argued that
there is no reliable eyewitness and the case rests on circumstantial
evidence that has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The
witnesses are related to the deceased and their testimonies contain
material contradictions and omissions. The alleged recovery of the axe
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25622
4 CRA-141-2016
and blood-stained shirt is doubtful and not proved as per Section 27 of
the Evidence Act. The motive of witchcraft suspicion is also weak.
Hence, the conviction under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal
Code is unsustainable, and the appellant deserves acquittal on benefit of
doubt.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment,
submitting that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence. The
prosecution has proved motive, homicidal death, and recovery of the axe
and blood-stained shirt at the accused's instance, supported by medical
evidence. The chain of circumstances is complete and points to the
accused's guilt. Hence, the conviction and sentence under Sections 302
and 449 IPC require no interference.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as
many as 08 witnesses.
7. Chotu Singh (PW-1) stated that between 12:00-1:00 PM, his son
informed him that Sandhya's father (accused Brajlal) had killed his
"Nana" and "Maa." He went to Mansharam's house and found Kanti
Bai's dead body in the courtyard with injuries. Mansharam's body was
found inside the house on a cot. He lodged the report (Ex. P-1) and
inquest intimation (Ex. P-2). The police prepared inquest memos (Ex. P-
5, P-6), site plan (Ex. P-7), and sent the bodies for post-mortem. In
cross-examination (para 5), he stated that the accused was already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25622
5 CRA-141-2016
present at Gadi Police Station when he reached to lodge the report.
8. Pratap Singh (PW-2), son of the deceased Mansharam, stated that
Chotu Singh informed him that Brajlal (father of Sandhya) had killed his
father Mansharam and sister Kanti Bai. He saw the dead bodies. Police
prepared inquest memos (Ex. P-5, P-6) and seized blood-stained and
plain soil (Ex. P-9, P-10). He further stated that during investigation, the
accused Brajlal produced an iron weapon from his house, which was
seized (Ex. P-12). Though declared hostile, he admitted in cross-
examination that the accused disclosed having concealed the weapon and
a blood-stained shirt, which he produced and which was seized by
police. He also stated that Brajlal had prior disputes with Mansharam
and used to accuse him of sorcery.
9. Ashok Agnihotri (PW-3), a driver, stated that he accompanied the
Station Officer and accused Brajlal to Mansharam's house in Gram
Nivas using the police jeep. There, the bodies of Mansharam and Kanti
Bai were found. In his presence, the Station Officer questioned the
accused, who disclosed that he had concealed the weapon and a blood-
stained shirt in the house. This disclosure was recorded as Exhibit P-2.
Pursuant to the disclosure, the accused recovered an iron weapon and
clothes from the house, which were seized by the police under seizure
memo Exhibit P-12.
10. Dhirpal (PW-4), son of Mansharam, stated that upon receiving
information, he reached home and found that the postmortem of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25622
6 CRA-141-2016
deceased had already been conducted. He further stated that he was
informed by others that Brajlal had murdered his father and sister. In
cross-examination, he admitted that Chotu, Budhram, and others had
told him that Brajlal committed the murders.
11. Budh Singh (PW-5) stated that on the day of the incident, he had
gone to Gadi village with his wife. While returning to his village
between 2:30 PM and 3:00 PM, he met Brajlal on the way, who told him
that he had killed Mansharam and Kanti Bai and asked him to take him
to the police station. After that, Brajlal went to the police station. He saw
the bodies of Mansharam and Kanti Bai. In his cross-examination, this
witness denied the suggestion that he did not tell the police that the
accused met him on the way and confessed to killing Mansharam and
Kanti Bai.
12. Z.F. Ahmad (PW-8), then in-charge of Gadi Police Station stated
that on 25.06.2014, he received information from Chotu Marawi that the
accused Brajlal had murdered Mansharam and Kanti Bai in village
Nivas. Based on this information, he registered Crime No. 54/2014
under Section 302 IPC. The First Information Report is Exhibit P-1. An
inquest intimation under Section 174 CrPC was also registered (Exhibit
P-2). During investigation, he visited the spot, prepared the site plan
(Exhibit P-7), and conducted inquest proceedings over the dead bodies
vide Exhibits P-5 and P-6. The bodies were sent for postmortem to
Community Health Centre, Behar through Constable Rahul Chaudhary.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25622
7 CRA-141-2016
The postmortem requisitions are Exhibits P-14A and P-15A. Statements
of witnesses, including Chotu Marawi (PW-1), Pratap Singh (PW-2),
and others, were recorded. Blood-stained and plain soil were seized from
the spot vide Exhibits P-9 and P-10. During interrogation, the accused
made a disclosure statement (Exhibit P-11) stating that he had concealed
the weapon (gadasa) and his blood-stained clothes in his house. Pursuant
to this, a gadasa and a brown shirt were recovered and seized vide
Exhibit P-12. This recovery is corroborated by witnesses Pratap Singh
(PW-2) and Ashok Agnihotri (PW-3). The seized articles were sent to
FSL, Sagar (Exhibit P-21), and as per the FSL report (Exhibit P-22),
human blood was found on the gadasa and the accused's clothes. The
incident occurred at about 1:00 PM on 25.06.2014, and the FIR was
promptly lodged at 2:00 PM, naming the accused and detailing the
incident, which supports its reliability. The accused, in his statement
under Section 313 CrPC, claimed that blood came on his clothes while
placing the dead bodies inside the house with villagers. However, this
explanation is not believable, as no such suggestion was put to
prosecution witnesses during cross-examination. Hence, the defence
appears to be an afterthought. Evidence on record also shows that the
accused suspected the deceased Mansharam of practicing witchcraft,
indicating motive and strained relations. The accused was arrested
(Exhibit P-19), and the seized articles were sent to FSL on 05.07.2014.
The FSL report confirms the presence of human blood, strengthening the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25622
8 CRA-141-2016
prosecution case.
13. Dr. N.S. Kumbhare (PW-7) conducted the postmortem of deceased
Mansharam and Kanti Bai on 25.06.2014. On deceased Mansharam's
neck on the left side and left side of the face, incised wounds were
found. According to his opinion, Mansharam's death was due to shock
caused by excessive blood loss from the fatal injury No. 1. Similarly, in
Kanti Bai's postmortem, incised wounds were found on the front part of
her neck and the middle part of the left shoulder joint. According to his
opinion, Kanti Bai's death was due to shock caused by the fatal injury
No. 1 on the neck. His reports are respectively Exhibits P-14 and P-15.
On 02.07.2014, the station in-charge sent the gadasa (axe) asking if the
injuries on deceased Mansharam and Kanti Bai could have been caused
by it, to which he opined that the injuries could have been caused by the
sharp edge. His report is Exhibit P-17. From the perusal of F.S.L. report
Exhibit P-22, it is clear that human blood was found on the shirt and
gadasa seized from the accused.
14. Thus, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence presented
by the prosecution, it is evident that no witness directly saw the accused
committing murder of Mansharam and Kanti Bai. The prosecution case
is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, along with an extra-
judicial confession made by the accused to Budh Singh (PW-5). Budh
Singh (PW-5) has clearly stated, and maintained even during cross-
examination, that the accused confessed to him about committing the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25622
9 CRA-141-2016
murders and requested to be taken to the police station. There is no
material contradiction or reason to disbelieve his testimony. Therefore,
the extra-judicial confession made by the accused appears reliable and
can be considered as evidence against him. In this context, paragraph 10
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Podyami Sukada vs. State
of M.P. reported in 2010(12) SCC 142 is relevant, which reads as
under:-
"10. There is no eyewitness of the crime and in
order to bring home the charge the prosecution has
relied on the extra-judicial confession said to have
been made by the appellant in the panchayat in the
presence of PWs 1 to 4 and further recovery of
weapon by the investigating officer at his instance.
Hence, what needs to be considered is as to whether
the extra-judicial confession said to have been
made by the appellant in the presence of the
witnesses deserves to be relied upon."
15. The defence examined DW-1 to establish that a meeting was held
at his house from 8:00 AM on the date of the incident, which was
attended by villagers, including the accused Brajlal. It was further stated
that during the meeting, the Kotwar informed them about the murder of
Mansharam and his daughter Kanti Bai. On this basis, the defence
attempted to prove an alibi, claiming that the accused was present at the
meeting at the relevant time. However, this evidence is not reliable. The
prosecution evidence clearly establishes that the murders occurred
between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM. In contrast, DW-1 admitted in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25622
10 CRA-141-2016
paragraph 4 of his cross-examination that the meeting lasted only about
two hours, ending around 10:00 AM. Therefore, the testimony of DW-1
does not cover the time of the incident. Further, no documentary
evidence, such as any register or record of the meeting, was produced.
Additionally, no suggestion regarding this alleged meeting was put to
the prosecution witnesses during their cross-examination. This omission
weakens the defence version and suggests that the story has been
introduced later. Accordingly, the testimony of DW-1 appears to be an
afterthought and cannot be relied upon. The plea of alibi taken by the
accused also fails, as under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, an
alibi must be proved in a manner that makes the presence of the accused
at the scene of the crime impossible, which has not been established in
the present case.
16. Upon considering all the evidence on record, it is established beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused, Brajlal, committed murders of
Mansharam and Kanti Bai by attacking them with a sharp weapon
(gadasa). The testimonies of the witnesses are consistent and are
supported by medical and documentary evidence. As such, we are of the
considered view that the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence
and has rightly convicted the appellant for the said offence. No error or
illegality is found in the trial court's judgment. Accordingly, the
conviction and sentence are upheld.
17. The appeal, being sans merit is hereby dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25622
11 CRA-141-2016
18. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with a
copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
Rao
