[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Neeraj Bandewar on 12 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12423
1 CRA-13241-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13241 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
NEERAJ BANDEWAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Soni - Deputy Advocate General for the State.
JUDGMENT
DICTATED IN OPEN COURT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Heard on I.A.No.31138/2024, which is an application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal.
2 For the reasons stated in the application supported with an affidavit, the
same is allowed.
3 The delay of 20 days in filing of this appeal is condoned.
4 This appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved of judgment dated
8.8.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial
No.342/2020 acquitting all the three accused persons, namely, Neeraj
Bandewar, Asraf Khan and Rahul Puri from the charges under Sections 302,
302/34, 302/120B, 201/34, 404, 404/34, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C").
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12423
2 CRA-13241-2024
5 Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submits that the learned
Trial Court observed that the case is to be decided on five touchstones,
namely: (i) the evidence of the deceased having last been seen in the
company of the accused persons; (ii) the recovery of material objects at the
instance of the accused persons; (iii) the confession made by the accused
persons in their disclosure statements; (iv) the extra-judicial confession; and
(v) the motive of the accused persons. Mohan Bandewar (PW-6) and
Kriparam Gohiya (PW-7) are both witnesses to the "last seen" circumstance.
6 Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submits that the learned
Trial Court discussed the motive while dealing with the allegation that
accused Neeraj Bandewar was in contact with another lad and, therefore, had
a motive to eliminate his wife, Anjali Bandewar. Extra judicial confession
was made to Dharamchand Kushwaha (PW-1) and Raja Bandewar (PW-4).
Present is a case in which the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned
Trial Court deserves to be set aside and a finding of conviction be recorded
instead.
7 When this Court found that Shri Yash Soni, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State, was taking us through the entire record except the
relevant material, we put a specific query to him. Since the dead body of
Anjali Bandewar (since deceased) was admittedly recovered from the bed of
the River Narmada, we asked whether any diatom test had been conducted.
In response to our query, he referred to Exhibit P/82, which, in our opinion,
ought to have been referred to by the learned Deputy Advocate General at
the first instance. Upon perusal of the Diatom Test Report (Exhibit P/82)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12423
3 CRA-13241-2024
issued by the Medico-Legal Institute, Government of Madhya Pradesh,
Home (Police) Department, Gandhi Medical College Building, Bhopal, dated
07.07.2020, it is evident that the diatom test was positive for both 'tibia bone'
and 'water sample'. Thus, it is evident that the first submission made by the
learned Deputy Advocate General for the State that the accused persons had
killed the deceased and thrown her into the river, is not made out, as the
Diatom Test Report clearly indicates that the cause of death was drowning.
8 The aforesaid fact is corroborated by the testimony of Dr.Tarun
Choudhary (PW-25), who stated that the body was so decomposed that it was
not possible to ascertain the exact cause of death. In paragraph No.3 of his
deposition, the doctor stated that the cause of death could be drowning,
resulting in asphyxia. He further deposed that he preserved the tibia bone,
two teeth, one bangle, and one thread, and sent them for chemical
examination. The doctor categorically mentioned that the viscera was not
preserved as it was completely decomposed. He also admitted that there were
no identification marks available on the body of the deceased. The doctor
further admitted that if death occurs due to drowning, it can be detected only
upon examination of the bones. The doctor also stated that he had taken a
blood sample for DNA examination.
9 As regards the identity of the dead body of Anjali Bandewar, the DNA
report (Exhibit P/81) is positive and establishes that the unknown dead body
was genetically related to Rajkumar Bandewar and Lalita Bandewar, i.e. she
was the biological daughter of Rajkumar Bandewar and Lalita Bandewar.
10 The issue that now arises for consideration is that the first limb of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12423
4 CRA-13241-2024
submission made by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State,
namely, that the death of Anjali Bandewar was homicidal, is not made out
from the report of Dr. Tarun Choudhary (PW-25).
11 As far as the evidence of last seen is concerned, learned Trial Court has
noted that the evidence of last seen is doubtful. The aforesaid fact is duly
corroborated from the testimony of Mohan Bandewar (PW.6) and Kriparam
Gohiya (PW.7).
12 Mohan Bandewar (PW-6) deposed that on 13.08.2019 at about 5:30
PM, he was standing near the Railway Station Parcel Office at an Egg Shop
when he saw Neeraj Bandewar and Anjali Bandewar in a white Bolero car.
The deceased, Anjali Bandewar, was the wife of Neeraj Bandewar. He stated
that Neeraj Bandewar alighted from the car, spoke to someone on the phone,
and thereafter both of them proceeded towards the city. This witness further
stated that after about 2-3 months, upon contacting the parents of the
deceased, he read in a newspaper that Anjali Bandewar had been killed and
her body thrown into the Narmada River. He admitted that he did not know
who had thrown Anjali Bandewar into the river. In his cross-examination,
this witness admitted that he had read in the newspaper that Anjali Bandewar
was missing. However, there is no statement to the police indicating that,
after reading the missing person report, he informed the police that he had
last seen her in the company of Neeraj Bandewar in a white Bolero car. His
police statement was recorded 89 days after the discovery of the dead body.
The testimony of Kriparam Gohiya (PW-7) is on similar lines. Thus, the
evidence relating to the "last seen" circumstance is not made out and has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12423
5 CRA-13241-2024
been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has
also correctly held that the present case rests entirely on circumstantial
evidence.
13 As regards the extra judicial confession, which is a weak piece of
evidence, it is a settled principle of law that such a confession can be relied
upon only if it is corroborated by other evidence. It has come on record that
in the month of August, extra judicial confession was allegedly made to
Dharamchand Kushwaha (PW-1) and Raja Bandewar (PW-4). However,
there is a significant omission if such a confession had indeed been made and
there is no explanation as to why these witnesses did not inform either the
relatives of the deceased or the police that Neeraj Bandewar and Asraf Khan
had killed Anjali Bandewar and thrown her into the bed of the Narmada
River.
14 The FIR was lodged on 17.10.2019. From August until 17.10.2019,
there was a significant lapse of time during which, if any extra judicial
confession had indeed been made by Neeraj Bandewar to Dharamchand
Kushwaha (PW-1) and Raja Bandewar (PW-4), they could have brought it to
the notice of the police. Raja Bandewar (PW.4) has turned hostile and has
not supported the prosecution case. Dharamchand Kushwaha (PW.1) even
did not say as to where extra judicial confession was made by Neeraj
Bandewar and Asraf Khan to him.
15 Thus, the second limb of the argument advanced by the learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State that there was an extra judicial confession, is
also not made out, in addition to the evidence of the "last seen," which has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12423
6 CRA-13241-2024
already been discarded by the learned Trial Court.
16 Thus, when the entire case is examined in the light of the law laid down
by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 then it is evident that none of the five circumstances
required to complete the chain of circumstances has been satisfactorily
established or explained by the prosecution.
17 In the absence of a complete chain of circumstances, the learned Trial
Court has rightly dismissed the prosecution's case and recorded a finding of
acquittal. Such a finding does not call for any interference in the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court, particularly when the evidence is appreciated in its
proper perspective most notably Exhibit P/82, which reveals that the Diatom
Test was positive and the cause of death of Anjali Bandewar was drowning
and there is no evidence that Anjali Bandewar was killed and thrown into the
river bed.
18 Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
19 Consequent upon dismissal of the present appeal, I.A.No.31137/2024
for grant of leave to appeal also stands dismissed.
20 Let cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) be
deposited by the appellant/State with the M.P.High Court Legal Service
Committee to be recovered from the erring officials as the present appeal has
been filed without application of mind and overlooking the most vital piece
of evidence i.e Diatom Test Report (Exhibit P/82) and, therefore, we are
constrained to impose the aforesaid cost for burdening the system with
unnecessary litigation where appeals are filed routinely without due
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12423
7 CRA-13241-2024
consideration to dissuade practice of non-application of mind while giving
opinion to file appeals in a casual manner. We hope that imposition of cost
will dissuade the authority to file appeals mindlessly.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
