[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14653
1 CRA-1309-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1309 of 2016
ANIL KHARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prem Narayan Verma - Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Shri Satish Kumar Vishwakarma - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shweta Yadav - Dy. AG for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Heard on I.A. No.11240/2025 , an application for change of counsel on
behalf of the appellant.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No.11240/2025 is
allowed.
3. Shri Satish Kumar Vishwakarm, Advocate is permitted to appear
on behalf of the appellant.
4. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed by the convicted appellant Anil Khare, being
aggrieved of the judgment dated 26.04.2016 passed by the learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat (M.P.) in S.T. No.115/2013, whereby
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14653
2 CRA-1309-2016
the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu of fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- R.I. for 1 year
404 IPC R.I. for 3 years Rs.5,000/- R.I. for 1 year
201 IPC R.I. for 2 years Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 6 months
5. It is submitted that learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the
appellant. It is submitted that the deceased Amruta Bai's marriage was
performed with appellant Anil Khare on 21.03.2013. On 01.05.2013 report
was lodged by complainant Durga Prasad Maneshwar to the effect that after
marriage on 27.04.2013 deceased Amruta had returned back to her parental
home on 27.04.2013. On 30.04.2013, son-in-law Anil Khare had also come.
At about 1.00 p.m. Anil Khare left his in-laws house. Thereafter Amruta
was not traceable. Later on her dead body was found by the side of a nala.
Merg No.3/13 was registered. SDOP had carried out investigation and it was
found that the deceased Amruta was murdered by Anil Khare for want of
dowry using a knife and had tried to suppress the fact of offence by hiding
the dead body by the side of a nala. On 02.05.2013, Police Station Hatta
recorded case Crime No.39/2013 under Section 304-B, 201, 34 of IPC.
6. Police had arrested Anil Khare, recorded his memorandum under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act and on the basis of his memorandum knife
used by Anil Khare was recovered. Anil Khare was also subjected to medical
examination. The jewelry which was worn by the deceased Amruta at the
time of the incident was identified by her relatives. Thereafter charge-sheet
was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Balaghat on 17.05.2013 bearing charge-sheet No.20/13 under Section 304-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14653
3 CRA-1309-2016
B, 201, 404, 34 of IPC. Matter was committed to the Sessions Court, where
learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 304-B and
in the alternate under Section 302, 404, 201, 34 of IPC. Appellant abjured
his guilt. Trial was conducted.
7. Accused took a defense that he had not committed any loot of the
jewelry of his wife and the jewelry which was purchased for his sister's
marriage was seized by Daroga and he has been falsely implicated.
8. Shri Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by
Shri Prem Narayan Verma, learned Amicus Curiae in his turn submits that
firstly recovery of knife is from a open place. Secondly as per the
postmortem Dr. Umang Baghel (PW-18) there were semi-circular injury
marks on the body of the deceased and therefore, as per Dr. Umang Baghel
since he had seen semi-circular injury marks, according to the learned
counsel that could not have been caused with a knife seized at the instance of
the appellant.
9. It is also submitted that even identification of silver jewelry is
doubtful in as much as according to him as per the text book on Indian
Evidence Act published by Central Law Agency authored by one Rajaram
Yadav Advocate, High Court and revised by one Dr. Basantilal Babel, 22nd
edition in case of a TIP of any goods in terms of Section 9 of the Evidence
Act, it is mandatory to mix items of similar description in the ratio of 1 : 10,
then only it can be said that proper identification was carried out.
10. Learned counsel for the State Ms. Shweta Yadav, Dy. AG when
asked that how provisions of Section 404 of IPC will be attracted in case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14653
4 CRA-1309-2016
even if it is deemed to be accepted that the recovery of jewelry of deceased
Amruta was made from the possession of the appellant, who was admittedly
her husband then she has no answer to this query. Ms. Yadav on the contrary
submits that the FSL report Ex.P/41 is available on record, which shows that
human blood was present not only the clothings of victim Amruta Bai but
also on the knife recovered at the instance of Anil Khare. It is also submitted
that that human sperms were present as per the FSL report, which has been
unfortunately not exhibited by the trial Court or the Public Prosecutor dated
30.05.2013 on the slide of deceased Amruta. Thus, it is submitted that
presence of the accused Anil Khare in the house of his in-laws where
Amruta was also visiting few days prior to she being joined by Anil Khare is
a circumstance, which is to be taken into consideration along with the fact
that without there being any cogent reason Anil Khare had left his in-laws
house and so also the company of Amruta allegedly at very odd hours i.e.
01.00 a.m. Thus, it is submitted that presumption is against the appellant.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, Kapoor Chand (PW-1) stated that he had gone to answer call of
nature towards the nala where he saw a dead body of a woman wearing red
colour saree. When he came back to his house after answering call of nature,
he found that Durga Prasad was searching his daughter. Then Kapoor Chand
had informed Durga Prasad about a dead body lying by the side of the nala.
Later on it was discovered that it was dead body of Amruta Bai. Patwari had
prepared naksha of the place where dead body was found.
12. Shyamu Panche (PW-2) Panchayat Sachiv stated that Anil is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14653
5 CRA-1309-2016
known to him. He is his son-in-law in relationship. Amruta is also known to
him. Police had issued notice for preparation of lash panchnama Ex.P/1 and
prepared lash panchayatnama Ex.P/2, which contains his signatures.
Memorandum of the accused Ex.P/3 and seizure memo Ex.P/4 also contains
his signatures. He also proved seizure memo Ex.P/5 and arrest memo Ex.P/6.
He admitted that Tahsildar had carried out identification of jewelry which
was identified by Durga Prasad and Gangabai and this identification memo
Ex.P/7 contains his signatures from A to A part. Thereafter this witness was
declared hostile. Leading questions were put. In cross-examination this
witness states that nala was open. There were four police personnels along
with SDOP, this witness, Thanilal and Anil. Knife was lying in the nala.
Nala is frequented by persons of the village. Accused had given jewelry from
a T.V. room but in seizure memo Ex.P/5, it is not mentioned that he had
brought jewelry from his T.V. room.
13. Ganikak (PW-3) stated that interrogation was made from Anil in
front of him. He had given information about the place where he had thrown
the knife. His memorandum is signed by this witness so also seizure memo
Ex.P/5, 6 and arrest memo Ex.P/7. In cross-examination nothing substantial
has come on record except the fact that he had not gone inside the house of
Anil from where jewelry was recovered by Daroga.
14. A.P. Mishra (PW-4) Tahsildar is a witness of preparation of lash
panchayatnama. He admits that at the time of preparation of lash
panchayatnama no doubt was expressed about anybody.
15. Ravindra Singh (PW-6) had received undergarments and other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14653
6 CRA-1309-2016
goods of the victim, which were given to him by postmortem doctor vide
Ex.P/8, which he had produced before the Court and seizure memo Ex.P/9
was prepared.
16. Mukesh (PW-7) Additional Tahsildar is the person, who had
obtained identification of the jewelry of daughter of Durga Prasad.
17. Harinarayan Barve (PW-8) is a jeweler had weighed and given a
certificate Ex.P/10.
18. Keshav Rao Kamade (PW-9) stated that he was posted as patwari
and he had prepared Nazri naksha Ex.P/11 and naksha prativedan Ex.P/12.
19. Durga Prasad Maneshwar (PW-10) is father of the deceased. He
stated that Amruta Bai was his daughter. Anil is his son-in-law. According to
this witness Anil used to harass Amruta for not bringing dowry items. This
witness stated that on 30.04.2013, there was marriage in his neighbourhood
in the house of Bhaiyalal Panche. Accused had also come to their house to
participate in that marriage. In the night of the marriage accused was sitting
with Amruta Bai in the house where marriage was to be performed, then he
had visited house of this witness. Accused and his daughter were talking in
courtyard of his house, then they became busy and could not keep track as to
where accused and Amruta had gone. Next day Amruta was searched for but
she could not be traced then Kapoor Bisen had informed him that a dead
body was lying by the side of a nala.
20. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that marriage of
his daughter was performed in a very cordial atmosphere and there was no
demand of dowry. This witness admits that for 20-22 days when Amruta
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14653
7 CRA-1309-2016
stayed in her in-laws house there was no dispute. When he had gone to bring
Amruta that time there was no dispute and he was hosted well. This witness
admits that police personnel had brought jewelry from the house of the
accused and had brought it before the Tahsildar. He could not say from
where he had purchased jewelry and stated that that was given to him by his
relatives.
21. Dr. Smt. Pushpa Dhurve (PW-13) stated that she had carried out
postmortem along with Dr. Umang Baghel. Postmortem report Ex.P/17
contains her signatures. There was no injury on the private parts of the
victim. She had prepared a slide of Amruta.
22. Smt. Gangabai (PW-15) is mother of Amruta. She supported her
husband. Similar statements have been given by Anita (PW-16).
23. Dr. Umang Baghel (PW-18) had conducted postmortem and
found that there was a contusion of blue colour measuring 7 cm semi
circular below right eye. There was stabbed wound measuring 1.5 cm semi
circular muscle deep on the chest under sternum bone. There was semi
circular one stabbed wound on the stomach just above the naval measuring
1.5 cm, which had pierced in her organs and they were bleeding. It is stated
that injury No.1 was caused by hard and blunt object, whereas injuries No.2
and 3 were caused by sharp and incised object. Death was within 12 - 14
hours.
24. Smt. Surji Bai (PW-19) stated that at night she had seen Anil and
Amruta going towards the nala. She had not seen them coming back. There
are no contradictions in this evidence on last seen.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14653
8 CRA-1309-2016
25. When these facts are taken into consideration, then recovery of
knife at the instance of Anil from a particular place on his memorandum is a
specific recovery. Knife was containing human blood. There is no
explanation that why Anil had to leave his in-laws house at 01.00 a.m. ,
which is too odd time to leave somebody's house especially when it is not his
case that he had any train or public transport to catch. Surji Bai (PW-19) had
last seen Anil with Amruta by the side of nala. Recovery of a dead body by
the side of same nala is another fact. Jewelry was found from the house of
Anil. If Anil would not have committed the offence then there was no
occasion for him to have taken away the jewelry. Even if the aspect of
jewelry is left aside as much as Amruta was his wife, there is no proof in the
hands of the prosecution witnesses that the jewelry was purchased by the
parents of Amruta, then also chain of circumstances that Anil had visited
Amruta on 30.04.2013. He had participated in the marriage in the
neighbourhood of Amruta's house. He and Amruta were seen in the
courtyard of Durga Prasad and thereafter by Surji Bai (PW-19) by the side of
nala at night of 30.04.2013, then dead body of Amruta was recovered in the
morning of 01.05.2013. By that time Anil had absconded the place of the
incidence. Thus, in totality chain of circumstances is complete. Thus, when
examined then as far as conviction under Section 302 is concerned it is
maintained. As far as conviction under Section 404 and 201 of IPC are
concerned, in absence of any cogent evidence to substantiate the charges of
dishonest misappropriation of property or of causing disappearance of
evidence of offence or giving false information to screen an offender being
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14653
9 CRA-1309-2016
not available, conviction under Section 201 and 404 of IPC being no
sustainable are hereby set aside.
26. In the result, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant is allowed
in part and disposed of. The record of the trial Court be sent back. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
27. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to place on
record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri Prem
Narayan Verma, learned amicus curiae, in the present matter. He shall be
entitled to receive his professional fee from the High Court Legal Services
Committee, upon furnishing a certified copy of this judgment, as per the
rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
RC
