[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14182
2026:MPHC
1
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. 636 of 2016
BABLU YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
APPEARANCE
Shri Mahesh Acharya, Advocate and Shri Sumit Tiwari, Advocate for the
appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar,
Tamrakar Government Advocate for the State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 683 of 2016
BRAJENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
APPEARANCE
Shri Binod Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar,
Tamrakar, Government Advocate for the State.
Date of hearing : 5.2.2026
Date of judgment : 19.2.2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 19-02-
2026 15:28:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14182
2026:MPHC
2
JUDGMENT
As Per : Justice Vivek Agarwal
These appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short "Cr.P.C") are filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 21.1.2016 passed by
learned Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act), Chhatarpur in Special
Case No.112/2014 convicting the accused persons, namely, Brajendra Singh and
Bablu Yadav for the offence under Sections 341, 364/34, 30
302/34,
2/34, 201of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C") and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing each of them to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month, imprisonment for lif
life,
e, imprisonment for
life, rigorous imprisonment for one year, imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/
Rs.1000/-,
Rs.1000/-, Rs.500/-,, Rs.2500/-
Rs.2500/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo
additional rigorous imprisonment for six months, six months, three months
month and one
month respectively with a further direction to run all the jail sentences concurrently.
2. The prosecution case in short is that on 16.10.2014, the complainant Bijju
Ahirwar was going towards Village Salaiya alongwith his friend Rajendra Ahirwar at
about 9:30 AM and while returning
return from Village Salaiya in the afternoon at about
2:30 PM outside Village Nandgai on Kalapani Road, they met Brajendra Singh and
Bablu Yadav,, intercepted their motorcycle, asked for their names and had beaten
them. The complainant
mplainant Bijju Ahirwar managed to escape from their clutches whereas
the accused persons captured Rajendra Ahirwar, threw him to the floor and beat him
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14182
2026:MPHC
with a stick.. Rajendra Ahirwar was hanged in a motorcycle and taken towards
Chhatarpur, the information in regard to which was given
iven by the complainant Bijju
Ahirwar to the father of Rajendra Ahirwar.. The villagers had gathered when
information was given to the Police Station Ishanagar vide Exhibit P/2. A search was
conducted for Rajendra Ahirwar when his dead body wass found covered with sand at
Kudinala. Rajendra's father Babulal Ahirwar lodged the Dehati Nalishi vide Exhibit
P/9. The postmortem of the dead body of Rajendra Ahirwar was carried out. The
charge sheet was filed before learned JJudicial Magistrate
ate First Class
Class-Nowgaon,
District Chhatarpur on 14.11.2014. On 8.12.2014, the matter was committed to the
Court of Sessions. The
he trial was conducted and the accused persons were convicted
and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants
appellants submits that present is a case of false
implication and there are several loopholes in the testimony of the complainant Bijju
Ahirwar. Bijju Ahirwar (PW
(PW-2)
2) gave contradictory statements, and since they are
contradictory in themselves, no convicti
conviction
on can be based on such statements. If the
statements of the complainant, Bijju Ahirwar (PW
(PW-2),
2), are discarded, then at best the
present case would be one of circumstantial evidence, where the chain of
circumstances is not complete and, therefore, deserves acquittal.
4. Shri Mahesh Acharya, Advocate and Shri Sumit Tiwari, Advocate appearing
for the appellant Bablu Yadav in Criminal Appeal No.636/2016 place reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Camilovaz versus State of Goa (2000) 2 SCR 1088
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14182
2026:MPHC
and submitt that since there were limited injuries on the body of the deceased
Rajendra Ahirwar, therefore, the conviction needs to be altered from one under
Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II
Part of the I.P.C and more so no offence under Section
364/34 of the I.P.C is made out against the appellants.
5. Learned Government Advocate for the State supports the impugned judgment
and prays for dismissal of the present appeals filed by the appellants.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the recor
record.
7. Vrindawan Tiwari (PW.1) states that the accused persons are known to him.
The deceased Rajendra Ahirwar was known to him. Rajendra Ahirwar died 55-6
months back. How Rajendra Ahirwar died
died, is not known to him. This witness was
declared hostile. Leading
ng questions were put to him. This witness has not supported
the prosecution case.
8. Bijju Ahirwar (PW.2) states that the accused persons are known to him. Their
names are Brajendra Singh and Bablu Yadav. Brajendra is of Thakur Community
whereas Bablu is of Yadav Community. Brajendra is resident of Village Purapatti
whereas Bablu Yadav is resident of Nandgai. Rajendra Ahirwar was a Teacher in a
School at Village Kalapani outside the Village Nandgai. Brajendra Singh and Bablu
Yadav had met them. They intercepted them on their way and asked about their
whereabouts. When the complainant Bijju Ahirwar stated that he was a resid
resident of
Keeratpura then they asked the pillion rider Rajendra Ahirwar as to which village he
belonged to. Rajendra Ahirwar stated that he is also
so a resident of Keeratpura and a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14182
2026:MPHC
man belonging to Santosh Rajoriya Camp. The
he accused persons caught hold of him,
threw him to the floor and beat him with a stick
stick. When the complainant Bijju Ahirwar
ran away, Rajendra Ahirwar shouted for he
help,
lp, but nobody came. After sometime,
some
Kalu Kachhi and Ramola Kachhi arrived to save Rajendra Ahirwar and he informed
them about the incident. They were followed by Jaikaran Vyas and Ravi Parashar to
whom the incident was narrated,
narra however, in the meantime, the accused persons had
taken Rajendra Ahirwar on his motorcycle towards Chhatarpur. Bijju Ahirwar (PW
(PW-2)
called Sunil on his phone and asked him to inform the father of Rajendra Ahirwar that
the accused persons had beaten Rajendra
Rajendra Ahirwar and to come urgently. Report
(Exhibit P/2) was authored by the complainant Bijju Ahirwar (PW.2)
(PW and was
recorded on 16.10.2014 at about 23:30 hours. This witness was exhaustively cross
cross-
examined, and during cross
cross-examination, he admitted that on 17.10.2014,
information was received that the dead body of Rajendra Ahirwar had been
discovered.. Thereafter, he himself, alongwith
alongwith the father of Rajendra Ahirwar and
villagers, accompanied the police personnel to identify the dead body of Rajendra
Ahirwar,
war, which was found buried under soil.
9. Ramola Kushwaha (PW.3) states that he had gone alongwith his brother
brother-in-law
Kalu to distribute cards for 13th day function of his mother's death related rituals.
When he was returning from Chhatarpur to Kalapani then on way to Parapatti, they
had seen two persons on a red colour motorcycle taking a person after hanging him
upwards down and thereafter he had m
met Bijju
ijju Ahirwar, who had stopped and
informed him about the incident that Rajendra Ahirwar was dragged by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14182
2026:MPHC
appellants. Bablu Vyas and Jaikaran Parashar had joined them when the complainant
Bijju Ahirwar had also informed them about the incident. After some
sometime, Girija
Seth,, Vrindawan Tiwari and Santosh Tiwari and the father of the deceased Rajendra
Ahirwar had also reached the place of the incident. They had gone in search of the
deceased Rajendra Ahirwar but could not find him.. This witness in cross
cross-examination
admits that Rajendra Ahirwar was known to him. He was handicapped in both legs
but he was not using crutches.
utches. He had a slight limp in his leg. He was stopped at the
place of the incident for 5-10
10 minutes. He had not made identification of the accused
accuse
persons.
10. Kalu Kushwaha (PW.4)
4) gives evidence similar to that of Ramola Kushwaha
(PW-3). In cross-examination,
examination, he admits that he had not made any report to the police
and that the police recorded his statement 22-3
3 days after the performance of the 13th-
13t
day rituals
11. Girija Prasad (PW.5) states that he had received a phone call. This witness has
turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case.
12. Babulal Ahirwar (PW.6) states that Rajendra Ahirwar was his son. He was
suffering from handicap in his
is left leg. The report was lod
lodged at night.
ht. He proved the
Dehati Nalishii (Exhibit P/9), Naksha Panchyatnama Exhibits P/11 & P/12) etc. This
witness admits that he had sent intimation through Sunil and when he had met Bijju
Ahirwar then he had given him information about the incident at 4:00 PM. They had
searched for the deceased Rajendra Ahirwar in forest and nearby places. On 17th at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14182
2026:MPHC
about 6:00 AM, they had received a call that they have to reach the police station by
10:00 AM. When on 17th he reached
reach the police station, the accused persons were
present. They had gone alongw
gwith
ith the accused persons to Kudinala where the dead
body of the deceased Rajendra Ahirwar was found buried under a heap of sand.
13. Sunil Ahirwar (PW.7) supports the prosecution case.
14. Motilal Pal (PW.8) states that the spot map (Exhibit P/3) was prepared in front
of him. He had put his
is thumb impression alongwith
alon Munna Yadav.
15. Ravi Parashar (PW.9) supports the prosecution case and states that the
complainant Bijju Ahirwar had informed him about the incident. There is no material
contradiction in his testimony
mony.
16. Munnalal Parashar (PW.10) is a witness in front of whom, the memorandum of
accused Bablu Yadav was recorded vide Exhibit
Exh P/16. His mobile phone
hone and ddanda
were seized vide Exhibit P/17
17 and he is also witness of arrest memo vide Exh
Exhibit
P/18. Similarly, this witness had signed the memorandum of accused Brajendra Singh
vide Exhibit P/19. One
ne Watch, Danda and one Stone were recovered at the insta
instance of
accused Brajendra Singh
gh vide Exhibit P/20 and his motorcycle was seized vide
Exhibit
it P/21 and the accused Brajendra Singh was arrested vide Exhibit P/22.
Dr.Yogesh Yadav (PW.11) states that on 17.10.2014, he had examined the
complainant Bijju Ahirwar. He had complained of pain in his right foot, neck and
right waist. There were no external
xternal injuries nor any contusion.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14182
2026:MPHC
17. Janki Prasad Tiwari (PW.12) states that Babulal had informed him about the
incident. He alongwith 10-15
15 villagers had gone to search for the body of the
deceased Rajendra Ahirwar but they could not find it when the report was lodged by
the complainant Bijju Ahirwar at Police Station Ishanagar.
18. Head Constable Ramnaresh Tiwari (PW.13) states that he had recorded the
Dehati Nalishi vide
de Exhibit P/24, which contains his signatures. The seizure memo
(Exhibit P/25) also contains his signatures.
19. Dr.Shivam Dixit (PW.14) states that he had found as many as 25 injuries on the
body of the deceased Rajendra Ahirwar. According to him, all in
injuries
juries were caused by
hard & blunt object and were antemortem. There were fractures of left third, fourth,
fifth and sixth ribs. Similarly, fourth, fifth and sixth right hand side ribs were also
fractured. Thoracic cavity was full of blood. The cause of de
death
ath was excessive blood
loss and the injury caused to the lungs within 24 to 36 hours of the postmortem.
20. Malkhan Singh (PW.15) states that he had carried out the photography at the
spot under the directions of the Incharge of F.S.L Mobile Unit Dr. (Smt)
(Smt Kiran Singh.
21. Patwari Ramadheen Ahirwar (PW.17) states that he had prepared the spot map.
22. Assistant Grade-III
III Baijnath Ahirwar (PW.18) working in the office of the
S.D.M.Chhatarpur states that he had proved the caste certificate of the deceased
Rajendra
jendra Ahirwar and had also proved that Rajendra Ahirwar was belonging to the
Scheduled Caste category.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14182
2026:MPHC
23. Naib Tahsildar Sachidanand Tripathi (PW.19) states that he had carried out the
test identification of the seized goods. He states that Babulal had rrightly
ightly identified the
Watch of the deceased Rajendra Ahirwar so also his mobile phone vide Exhibit P/43.
24. Santosh Tiwari (PW.21) states that Babulal had visited and informed him that
the complainant Bijju Ahirwar had called on mobile phone of his nephew Sunil
Ahirwar and thereafter this witness had accompanied Babulal. The complainant Bijju
Ahirwar had informed them about the incident. He alongwith other members of tthe
group had gone in search of Rajendra Ahirwar.
25. Retired Dy.S.P Akhilesh Mishra (PW.23) states that he had interrogated Bablu
Yadav on 21.10.2014 when his memorandum was recorded vide Exhibit P/16.
Similarly, the memorandum of Brajendra Singh was recorded
rded by this witness vide
Exhibit
it P/19. This witness had also carried out the seizure proceedings and arrest as
well.
26. Sub Inspector Anand Singh Parihar (PW.24) states that on 16.10.2014, he was
posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Ishanag
Ishanagar.
ar. The complainant Bijju
Ahirwar had lodged a report against Brajendra Singh and Bablu Yadav. This witness
had registered
red Crime No.92/2014 for the offence under Sections, 341 & 364 of the
I.P.C. The report Exhibit P/2 is in his own handwriting. He had sentt the complainant
Bijju Ahirwar for medical examination after filling the MLC form vide Exhibit
P/23A. This witness had recorded the statements of the witnesses. He had also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14182
2026:MPHC
facilitated photography of the scene of crime and the dead body of the deceased
Rajendra Ahirwar etc. There is no contradiction in his testimony.
27. Thus, it is evident that the testimony of eye-witness
eye witness Bijju Ahirwar (PW.2) has
remained unrebutted. He is a witness in front of whom, the deceased Rajendra
Ahirwar was beaten.. He is a witness, who had seen the deceased Rajendra Ahirwar
being carried on a motorcycle by the accused persons. He is also a witness, w
who had
called Sunil Ahirwar to send information to the father of the deceased, namely,
Babulal Ahirwar, a fact which is corrobo
corroborated
rated from the testimony of Babulal Ahirwar
(PW.6) and Sunil Ahirwar (PW.7). The postmortem doctor Shivam Dixit (PW.14) had
found as many as 25 injuries on the body of the deceased Rajendra Ahirwar. The
cause of death of the deceased, Rajendra Ahirwar, was excessive blood loss due to
ruptured lungs.
28. When all these facts are taken into consideration then it is evident that the
judgment of the Apex Court in Camilovaz versus State of Goa (supra) will not be
applicable to the facts & circumstances of the pr
present
esent case. The testimony of eye-
eye
witness account Bijju Ahirwar (PW.2) has remained unrebuttted
unrebuttted rather it is
corroborated with the testimony of Dr.Shivam Dixit (PW.14). The presence of the
complainant Bijju Ahirwar (PW.2) could not be discarded as that of a planted wi
witness.
29. Thus, when all these facts are taken into consideration including the fact that
the dead body of the deceased Rajendra Ahirwar was recovered at the instance of the
accused persons from Kudinala then it is evident that the impugned ju
judgment of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14182
2026:MPHC
conviction does not call for any interference in these appeals. The learned Trial Court
has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has found that present was a case
of brutal murder jointly committed by the accused Brajendra Singh and the accused
Bablu Yadav (the appellants herein) on account of some rivalry. Since the accused
persons were known to the complainant party as well as to the deceased Rajendra
Ahirwar, and vice versa, they had knowledge of the caste of the deceased Rajendra
Ahirwar.
rwar. Despite this, causing homicidal injuries resulting in death clearly falls
within the ambit of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
30. Accordingly, these appeals fail and are dismissed.
31. Let record of learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(Vivek Agarwal) (Ratnesh
Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen)
Bisen
Judge Judge
amit
