[Cites 63, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishan Singh @ Kissu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13937 of 2024
SHRIRAM SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate
A for the objector.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14282 of 2024
BALBIR THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the objector.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14287 of 2024
AANISH KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
2
Appearance:
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the objector.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 23 of 2025
MONU TANTUVAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Neeraj Pathak, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the objector.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 42 of 2025
KISHAN SINGH @ KISSU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the objector.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 213 of 2025
SOHAIL KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
3
Appearance:
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the objector.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 219 of 2025
ANISH PATHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the objector.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 297 of 2025
GOLU @ DEEPENDRA THAKUR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms.Smita Varma, Advocate for the appellant Nos.1 to 4,6,7,8.
Ms.Shikha Dwivedi, Advocate for appellant No.5.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the objector.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 363 of 2025
SHAILENDRA SINGH PARIHAR @ SHAILU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
4
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the objector.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 995 of 2025
SOMESH CHOURASIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1087 of 2025
CHANDU ALIAS KAUSHLENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kapil Pa-
P
thak, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the objector.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1196 of 2025
RAJA DON @ RAJENDRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
5
Appearance:
Ms.Smita Varma, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the objector
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2202 of 2025
SOMESH CHOURASIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
Date of hearing : 21.11.2025
Date of judgment : 20.1.2026
JUDGMENT
As Per : Justice Vivek Agarwal
These appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") originate out of judgment dated
30.11.2024 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge
Judge-Hatta,
Hatta, Sessions
Division-Damoh
Damoh in Sessions Trial No.30/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh
P
Police versus Raja Don @ Rajendra & 27 Others) whereby twenty-five
twenty
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
accused persons, namely, Raja Don @ Rajendra, Golu @ Deependra
Thakur, Balveer Thakur, Aanish Khan S/o.Guddu Khan, Monu Tantuvay,
Anish Pathan S/o.Ajim Pathan, Amjad Pathan, Shriram Sharma, Lokesh
Patel, Sohail Khan S/o.Mohammad Haneef @ Hannu Pathan, Shahrukh
Khan, Bhansingh Parihar, Akash Thakur, Sandeep Tomar, Khoobbchand @
Nanna, Vikram Singh, Sukendra Athiya, Indrapal, Chandu @ Kaushalendra
Singh, Mazhar Khan, Kishan Singh, Sohai
Sohaill Khan S/o.Sabbbir Khan,
Phuklu, Shailendra Singh Parihar @ Shailu, Govind Singh have been
convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short "I.P.C") and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years
with fine of Rs.1,000/
.1,000/- each with default stipulation of rigorous
imprisonment for thirty days. They have also been convicted for the offence
under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C and sentenced to
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation of
rigorous imprisonment for thirty days. They have also been convicted for
the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C as regards
the injured and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment for
thirty days. All the jail sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Criminal Appeal No.2202/2025 & Criminal Revision No.995/2025 have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
been filed by the complainant party seeking enhancement of sentence
sen to
death penalty.
2. The accused persons, namely, Vikas Patel and Ratnesh Patel have
been acquitted from all the charges whereas appellant Chhotu @ Trilok
Singh was absconding during trial. Similarly, the other party has filed
Criminal Revision No.99
5/2025 seeking enhancement of punishment and
claiming death penalty for each of the accused persons.
3. The prosecution case in short is that the complainant Mahesh Prasad
had approached Police Station Hatta, District Damoh on 15.3.2019 and
reported that hee is involved in the profession of contractorship and has a
damar plant at Dholiyakheda, which is looked after by himself and his
brother Devendra (since deceased). On 15.3.2019 at about 10:45 AM, the
complainant Mahesh Prasad himself, deceased Devendra, S
Somesh,
omesh, Ashok
Chourasia and his son Animesh Chourasia had reached their damar plant on
their motorcycles with a view to open their office and after getting off the
motorcycles when they were going inside and he was urinating by the side
of the office, at that
at time, a black colour duster car, a red colour classic
vehicle, a jeep and a TUV vehicle alongwith four other motorcycles
reached the plant and they were occupied by Chandu @ Kaushalendra
Singh, Govind, Golu @ Deependra Thakur, Shriram Sharma, Amjad Path
Pathan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
@ Bootha, Lokesh Singh, Indrapal Patel alongwith others, who were armed
with lathis, rods & dandas. The accused party came running and the
accused Govind abused the deceased Devendra asking him as to why he
had changed the party and all the accused persons started beating
Devendra. When Somesh tried to intervene then he too was beaten with
rods and lathis. Both the accused persons, namely, Chandu @ Kaushalendra
Singh and Govind had beaten Devendra with rod and lathi on his legs,
chest, neck whereas Golu @ Deependra Thakur had caused injuries on his
stomach, throat and back. The accused Lokesh and Indrapal had beaten
injured Somesh with lathi and rod, as a result of which, Somesh had
sustained injuries on his hands and chest
chest. When the other persons working
in the plant rushed there, the accused persons boarding their vehicles ran
away towards Patera. Animesh, Ashok and Mahesh Prasad had taken the
deceased Devendra and injured Somesh to Hatta Hospital. The aforesaid
incident was seen by all the members of th
thee damar plant. From Hatta
hospital, the deceased Devendra and injured Somesh were referred to
Damoh.
4. On the basis of the report of the complainant Mahesh Prasad, the
police personnel at Police Station Hatta, District Damoh registered the first
information report vide Crime No.143/2019 (Exhibit P/1) against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
accused persons, namely, Chandu Singh, Govind Singh, Golu @ Deependra
Thakur, Shriram Sharma, Amjad @ Bootha, Lokesh Singh and Indrapal
Patel for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 307, 147, 148, 149 and
506 of the I.P.C. The spot map (Exhibit P/2) was prepared. They had
recovered the blood soaked
oaked as well as plain soil from the spot. Similarly,
the blood soaked and plain Gitti alongwith one pair of blue
blue-coloured
slipper, one broken danda and a bamboo stick were also recovered. The
seizure memo was prepared vide Exhibit P/3. The injured Somesh and the
deceased Devendra were subjected to medical examination. During the
admission of injured Somesh, his statements were recorded by the Tahsildar
at Jabalpur and since the deceased Devendra died during treatment, the
merg intimation was given to the P
Police
olice Station Vijay Nagar, District
Jabalpur. The merg No.0/19 was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C.
The information of death of deceased Devendra is Exhibit P/146 whereas
the merg intimation is Exhibit D/10. The notice was given for merg
investigation
gation vide Exhibit P/23. The naksha panchayatnama was prepared
vide Exhibit P/24. The postmortem of deceased Devendra was conducted
and the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. On the
basis of the said merg report, the Police Statio
Station
n Hatta, District Damoh had
recorded the Merg No.14/19.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
5. During investigation, the statements of the eye-witnesses,
eye witnesses, namely,
injured Somesh Chourasia, Mahesh Chourasia, Dassu @ Dashrath Yadav,
Pravveen Chourasia, Santosh Chourasia, Pradeep Khateek, Mahesh
Sharma, Ashok Chourasia, Animesh Chourasia, Sandhya Chourasia, Lata
Chourasia, Manish Chourasia, Sanjay Chourasia were recorded by the
police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C whereas the statements of Somesh
Chourasia, Pradeep Khateek, Dassu @ Dashrath @ Dashrath Yadav and
Mahesh Sharma were recorded in Court under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
6. During investigation, it came to the knowledge that before giving
effect to the incident on 15.3.2019, the accused persons had assembled in
the house of Indrapal si
situated
tuated at Gandhi Ward, a fact which was
corroborated from the CCTV camera installed in the house of Indrapal and
the identification panchnama was obtained through eye
eye-witness
witness Praveen
Chourasia where Praveen Chourasia had identified the accused persons as
Indrapal,
ndrapal, Golu @ Deependra Singh, Lokesh Patel, Balveer Singh,
Shailendra Singh Parihar @ Shailu, Chhotu @ Trilok, Khoobchand Patel,
Sohail Khan S/o.Mohammad Haneef, Sohail Khan S/o.Sabbir Khan, Aanish
Khan S/o.Guddu Khan, Anish Pathan S/o.Ajim Pathan, Raja Don @
Rajendra Ahirwar, Monu Tantuvay, Shahrukh Pathan, Akash Parihar,
Sukendra Athiya, Vikram Singh, Bhansingh, Kishan Thakur, Sandeep
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
Tomar and Phuklu Thakur. He had also identified a grey colour creta car
belonging to accused Golu @ Deependra Thakur, a black colour duster car
belonging to accused Indrapal, a black colour open jeep belonging to
Amjad and one red colour Mahindra TUV 300. The aforesaid cars were
seized and thereafter the memorandum statements of the accused Golu @
Deependa Singh, Lokesh Pa
Patel,
tel, Indrapal Patel, Amjad @ Bootha, Shrirm
Sharma, Sohail Khan, Balveer Thakur, Raja Don @ Rajendra, Bhansingh,
Akash, Shahrukh Pathan, Sandeep Tomar, Sukendra Athiya and Vikram
Singh were recorded. The accused persons were arrested and were sent to
the judicial
udicial remand where their test identification parade was carried out.
On the identification of Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh, the material used
in giving effect to the incident was searched from a place near culvert at a
pond situated in village Manjhgawan but no recovery could be made and
thereafter Section 201 of the I.P.C was added.
7. During investigation, it was discovered that Vikas Patel was part of
the conspiracy. After the incident, the absconded accused Govind Singh,
Lokesh Patel, Shriram Sharma, G
Golu
olu @ Deependra Thakur, Amjad and
Balveer were provided money, mobile, sim etc at his restaurant situated at
Jhansi. The mobile phones were disposed of in a pond at Jhansi and later
they were recovered from the said pond. The concerned MLC doctor and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
the postmortem
ostmortem doctor were subjected to query reporting and during
analysis of the cyber report, it has come on record that all the accused
persons were in close contact with each other and at the time of the
incident, their location was at Hatta. During investigation,
investigation, certain firearms
were recovered but it will not be out of place to mention here that all the
accused persons have been acquitted from the charges under the Arms Act,
1959.
8. On completion of the investigation, final report was submitted before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh and thereafter the matter was
committed to the Court of Session. It has come on record that during trial,
the case was transferred by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Damoh
to Hatta. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete
innocence. The trial was conducted and they have been convicted and
sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.
9. The prosecution examined 59 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.59) and
produced 317 documents (Exhibit P/1 to Exhibit P/317) and also produced
87 physical articles (marked as Article
Article-A1 to Article-A87)
A87) on record
whereas the defence examined 19 witnesses (DW.1 to DW.19) and
produced 119 documents (Exhibit D/1 to Exhibit D/119) on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
10. Shri Surendra Singh learned Senior Advocat
Advocate assisted
isted by Shri Kapil
Pathak, Advocate
ate appearing for two of the appellants, namely, Govind
Singh and Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh submits that allegation against
the appellants is of causing murder of Devendra and causing injuries to
Somesh Chourasia (PW
(PW.2).
.2). From the testimony of Mahesh Chourasia
(PW.1) and Somesh Chourasia (PW.2), Animesh Chourasia (PW.4) and
Ashok Chourasia (PW.7), who is brother of Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1), it is
evident that the deceased Devendra had sustained 27 injuries but all were
on his legs.
11. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants submits that the
allegation against Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh and Govind Singh is that
they were armed with rods and had caused injuries to deceased Devendra
whereas the allegation against Lokes
Lokesh
h and Indrapal is of causing injuries to
Somesh with lathi and rod. The FIR is against only 7 named persons and
Dr.Sourabh Jain (PW.9) had conducted the MLC of deceased Devendra
vide Exhibit P/41. Pradeep Khateek (PW.6) and Dassu @ Dashrath Yadav
(PW.8) state
ate that they had visited Devendra at hospital during his treatment
and Devendra had given an oral dying declaration. Thereafter, the injured
was referred to Damoh and from Damoh to Jabalpur where it is stated that
at Abhana, Devendra gave a dying declaration
declaration to Manish Chourasia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
(PW.10) and Sanjay Chourasia (PW.45). Learned Trial Court did not
believe in the so called dying declaration given by Devendra to Manish
Chourasia (PW.10) and Sanjay Chourasia (PW.45).
12. It is pointed out by learned Senior Advocat
Advocatee for the appellants that
Dr.R.L.Thakuriya (PW.33), who was working as Chief Medical Officer at
Shalby Hospital, Jabalpur, states that as per the history of the incident
recorded in Exhibit D/9, it is mentioned that the deceased Devendra and
injured Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) were assaulted by the unknown persons.
The deceased Devendra expired when intimation was sent to the Police
Station Vijay Nagar vide Exhibit P/146 again mentioning a fact that the
injured was assaulted by the unknown persons. The information
informat given by
Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) at Police Station Hatta, District Damoh is infact
recorded by the Assistant Sub Inspector B.M.Choubey (PW.39) but the
aforesaid fact was suppressed by the prosecution. Infact, Mahesh Chourasia
had given a written compla
complaint
int and it was obligatory on the part of the
Assistant Sub Inspector B.M.Choubey (PW.39) to have brought on record
that written complaint revealing the actual contents of the report. The
aforesaid report was given at 12.18 PM whereas Exhibit P/1 was prepared
prepar
at 14.15 hours. The postmortem was conducted vide Exhibit P/148 by
Dr.Vivek Shrivastava (PW.34). Learned Trial Court relied on the eye
eye-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
witnesses Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1), Somesh Chourasia (PW.2), Praveen
Chourasia (PW.3), Santosh Chourasia (PW.5), Pradee
Pradeep
p Khateek (PW.6),
Ashok Chourasia (PW.7), Dassu @ Dashrath Yadav (PW.8) out of which,
Praveen Chourasia (PW.3) and Santosh Chourasia (PW.5) were cooks at the
plant. The oral dying declaration given by the deceased Devendra at
Abhana to Manish Chourasia (PW
(PW.10)
.10) and Sanjay Chourasia (PW.45) is
rejected by the Trial Court in Paragraph No.205 of the impugned judgment.
13. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate for the appellants that
Rambai Parihar is wife of Govind. She was sitting MLA of Pathariya and
has been examined as DW.10. Chandu is brother of Govind and is brother
brother-
in-law
law of Rambai Parihar. Rambai Parihar made a complaint to the
Governor through the Collector when the Special Investigation Team was
constituted, which gave its report vide Exhibit D/24.
D/24. As per the version of
the accused Govind, he was in his village Gopura and Chandu was at is
village Hinauta. The Station House Officer Dharmendra Kumar Singh
(PW.57) alongwith TV crew and public were present at PHC Hatta. No
Dehati Nalishi was recorded. No statements of injured were recorded. Thus,
non-production
production of the written complaint by Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1)
given to B.M.Choubey (PW.39) is fatal to the prosecution case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
14. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate for the appellants that
there are three lawyers in the family of the complainant Mahesh Chourasia
and infact they fabricated the case. The FIR (Exhibit P/1) is inadmissible
and looking to the fact that the deceased Devendra died on the next day at
about 2:10 AM at Jabalpur and all the inj
injuries
uries were caused on non-vital
non part
of the body, the conviction needs to be altered from one under Section 302
to Section 304 Part-II
II of the I.P.C.
15. Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kapil
Pathak, Advocate for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1087/2025
places reliance on certain judgments of the Apex Court as well as this
Hon'ble High Court and they are Ramsai and others versus State of
Madhya Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 464, B.K.Channappa versus State of
Karnataka (2006) 12 SCC 557,
7, Adu Ram versus Mukna & Others
(2005) 10 SCC 597, Parashram versus State of Madhya Pradesh 1970
JLJ Short Note 113, Sevi & Another versus State of Tamil Nadu &
Others 1981 (Supp) SCC 43, Sheikh Meheboob @ Hetak & Others
versus State of Maharashtra (2005) 10 SCC 387, Ram Das versus State
of Maharashtra (1977) 2 SCC 124, Marudanal Augusti versus State of
Kerala (1980) 4 SCC 425, Mayur Panabhai Shah versus State of
Gujarat (1982) 2 SCC 396, Lallusingh S/o.Jagdishsingh Samgar versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
State of Madhya Pradesh 1996
1996 M.P.L.J 452,Hrishankar versus State of
M.P. 1996 J.L.J 442, H.Siddiqui (dead) by LRs versus A.Ramalingam
(2011) 4 SC 240, U.Sree versus U.Srinivas (2013) 2 SCC 114.
16. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal
/2024 & Criminal Appeal No.363/2025 supports the
arguments advanced by Shri Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel for
appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1087/2025 and places reliance on certain
judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble High Court and
a they
are Devinder versus State of Haryana AIR 1997 SC 454, Mahendra
Singh & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 7 SCC 157,
State of Haryana versus Ram Singh (2002) 2 SCC 426, Sudarshan &
Another versus State of Maharashtra (2014) 12 SCC 312, Meharaj
Me
Singh (L/Nk) versus State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188, State of Utttar
Pradesh versus Mangal Singh & Others (2009) 12 SCC 306, Asraf
Biswas versus State of West Bengal Criminal Appeal No.840/2013,
Manoj & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC
S 353,
Tomaso Bruno and another versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC
178, Jugut Ram versus State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 9 SCC 520,
Heikrujam Chaoba Singh versus State of Manipur (1999) 8 SCC 458,
Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu versus State of Madhya Pradesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
(2024) 2 SCC 666, Prem Narain & Another versus State of Madhya
Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 485, Jafarudheen & Others versus State of
Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440, Kehar Singh & Others versus State (Delhi
Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609, Ramesh & Another versus
vers State of
Karnataka (2024) 9 SCC 169, Sachin versus State of Maharashtra 2019
SCC Online Bom 1080, Pratap Singh & Another versus State of M.P
(2005) 13 SCC 624, Moti & Others versus State of U.P. (2003) 9 SCC
444, Boddella Babul Reddy versus Public Pros
Prosecutor,
ecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh (2010) 3 SC 648, Dayal Singh & Others versus State
of Uttaranchal (2012) 8 SCC 263, Mohd. Muslim versus State of Uttar
Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand) (2023) 7 SCC 350, Ramprasad versus
State of Maharashtra (1999) 5 SCC 30, Sunder
Sunder Singh versus State of
Uttaranchal (2010) 10 SCC 611, Ramcharan (dead) & Others versus
State of M.P (2023) 2 SCC 163, Deepak Kumar versus Ravi Virmani &
Another (2002) 2 SCC 737, Vijay Singh versus State of Bihar 2024 SCC
Online SC 2623, Anand Ramachandra
Ramachandra Chougule versus Sidarai
Laxman Chougala & others (2019) 8 SCC 50, Kannaiya versus State of
M.P 2025 SCC Online SC 2270, Sakhawat versus State of U.P 2025
SCC Online SC 1205, Gireesan Nair & Others versus State of Kerala
(2023) 1 SCC 180, Babloo versus State of M.P 2009 SCC Online MP
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
102, Ankush Maruti Shinde & Others versus State of Maharashtra
(2019) 15 SCC 470, Harihar Prasad Prasad Etc versus State of Bihar
(1972) 3 SCC 89, Madhu Limaye versus State of Maharashtra (1977) 4
SCC 551, Anand Ramachandra Chougule versus Sidarai Laxman
Chougala & Others (2019) 8 SCC 50.
17. Ms.Smita Varma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
Criminal Appeal No.297/2025 and Criminal Appeal No.1196/2025 places
reliance on certain judgments of the Apex Court as well
well this Hon'ble High
Court and they are Rajendra Singh & others versus State of Uttaranchal
2025 SCC Online SC 2148, Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan & Others
versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) (2019) 4
SCC 538, Bir Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 4 SCC 420,
Amar Singh versus State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 19 SCC 165, Radha
Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Others versus State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC
450, Kumersingh & Others versus State of M.P 2006 SCC Online MP
583, Noor @ Nooruddin versus State of Karnataka (2007) 12 SCC 84.
18. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate for the State
in his turn supports the impugned judgment of conviction and places
reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court and they are Ram Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
versus State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 339 & Nitya Nand versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2024) 9 SCC 314.
19. Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand
Kumar Sharma, Advocate for appellants in Criminal Appeal No.2202/2025
and the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.995/2025 and also the objector
in all other criminal appeals in his turn submits that looking to the brutality
while maintaining the conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C, the
sentence imposed upon the appellants be altered from
from one of life
imprisonment to death penalty.
20. In the present case, the accused persons have made a claim for their
acquittal whereas the complainant party has prayed for conversion of
sentence from one of life imprisonment to death penalty.
21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
22. The facts of the present case can be seen in a precise manner and be
summarised from the case of the prosecution as is obtained from the FIR
(Exhibit P/1) pertaining to Crime No.143/2019
No.143/2019 at Police Station Hatta,
District Damoh whereby the FIR was recorded on 15.3.2019 at 14.40 hours
after receiving intimation at the police station at 12.18 hours about the
incident, which took place from 10:45 to 10:50 AM. As per the FIR, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
alleged that
at the accused persons had arrived in different vehicles and they
being armed with lathis and iron rods, abused Devendra asking him as to
why he had changed his party and they had beaten Devendra and when
Somesh tried to intervene, he had also sustained in
injuries.
juries. The author of the
FIR, Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) states that he had seen the accused persons
running towards Patera and then he himself, Animesh Chourasia (PW.4)
and Ashok Chourasia (PW.7) had taken Devendra and Somesh to Hatta
Hospital. The incident was seen by all employees of the plant and from
Hatta, they were referred to Damoh when this witness Mahesh Chourasia
approached the police station to lodge report saying that Devendra and
Somesh were brutally beaten and they are not able to speak.
23. Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) is not only author of the FIR (Exhibit P/1)
but also an eye-witness
witness to the incident. He states that seven accused persons
are known to him and they have been identified by him in presence of the
Naib Tahsildar at Sub Jail Hatta and the Central Jail, Sagar. He named
seven persons as Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh, Govind, Golu @
Deependra Thakur, Lokesh Singh, Indrapal Patel, Shriram Sharma and
Amjad Pathan and further states that remaining other accused persons can
be identified by him on seeing them. He had identified Shriram Sharma
before the Court. He had identified Amjad Pathan when shown through
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
video conferencing so also Indrapal Patel. He could not identify Shahrukh.
This witness had identified Sohail Khan on the basis of face recognition
re but
could not give his name. Another accused Aanish Khan was also identified
in similar pattern.
24. It has come on record that no photographs were attached to the arrest
memo of Sandeep Tomar and Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh. The
proceedings of the
he Court were published in daily newspaper though the
Court expressed that it had not directed publication of any of the
proceedings in the newspaper. In Paragraph No.7 of the examination-in-
examination
chief carried out on 28.11.2020, this witness had identified Shri
Shriram
Sharma, Aanish Khan, Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh, Indrapal Patel,
Amjad Pathan, Shahrukh, Sohail Khan, Lokesh Patel, Balveer Singh, Golu
@ Deependra Thakur, Raja Don, Monu Tantuvay, Anish Pathan and when
the Court asked their names then they were the ssame
ame as were narrated by
this witness (PW.1).
25. In Paragraph No.10, Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) states that he had seen
Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh, Govind Singh, Golu @ Deependra Thakur,
Shriram Sharma, Amjad Pathan, Lokesh Patel, Indrapal Patel arriving at the
place of the incident and then it is stated that there were 15-20
15 other
persons but this fact with regard to presence of 15-20
15 20 persons as mentioned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
in examination-in-chief
chief in Paragraph No.10 is missing in the FIR wherein
presence of other accused perso
persons has not been shown.
26. In Paragraph No.13, it has come on record that Animesh Chourasia
and Ashok Chourasia and this witness Mahesh Chourasia had called a
vehicle and had taken injured Somesh and severely injured Devendra and
unconscious with broken llimbs
imbs Somesh to the Hospital for treatment and on
account of excessive injuries, they were referred to Damoh. After the
patients were taken to Damoh, he had reached the police station between
12:15 to 12:30 and had given report at Police Station Hatta. After
Afte lodging
of the FIR, the spot map (Exhibit P/2) was prepared and certain seizures
were made.
27. In Paragraph No.16, Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) states that Jila
Panchayat President Shivcharan Patel and Pathariya M.L.A Rambai Parihar
were part of the conspira
conspiracy.
cy. The main accused persons were Indrapal Patel,
Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh, Golu @ Deependra Thakur and Lokesh
Patel. It has also come on record that the Court had recorded demeanour of
this witness while putting a note below Paragraph No.23 and above
Paragraph No.24.
28. In Paragraph No.24 of the cross-examination,
cross examination, Mahesh Chourasia
(PW.1) admits that before signing the FIR (Exhibit P/1), he had read the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
FIR and then signed it. In Paragraph No.25 of his cross
cross-examination,
examination, this
witness admits that with re
regard
gard to the identification of the other accused
persons, he had not made any complaint to the Court that their pictures
were shaky while they were made to appear through video conferencing.
He admits that prior to the date of the cross-examination,
cross examination, he had identified
all the accused persons as were appearing on television screen. This witness
admits that he has three advocates in his family, namely, Neeraj Chourasia,
Vivek Chourasia and Sanjay Chourasia.
29. Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) in Paragraph No.30 of his cross-
examination admits that if name of a person is not known then his physical
description is important. In Paragraph No.31, this witness admits that in his
examination-in-chief,
chief, he had given details of all those, who were present at
the time of the incident.
ident. He denies preparation of the spot map (Exhibit
P/4) saying that he does not remember as to what is mentioned in the spot
map. In Paragraph No.32, this witness admits that in Exhibit P/1, though he
had mentioned that the other persons had come but ha
hadd not given their
number to be 15-20
20 persons. In Paragraph No.35, this witness admits that
he had correctly mentioned in his report (Exhibit P/1) that Somesh and
Devendra were unable to speak
speak.. In Paragraph No.47, this witness admits
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
that in the FIR (Exhibitt P/1), he had not made any mention with regard to
creta vehicle.
30. In Paragraph No.49, Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) admits that the named
persons were armed and other persons were also armed but he cannot say as
to how many persons were armed in total. In Pa
Paragraph
ragraph No.51, this witness
states that after lodging of the report, the spot map (Exhibit P/2) was
prepared. In Paragraph No.57, a suggestion has been given to this witness
that the pamphlets were circulated to arrest the accused persons but he
denies thatt on the basis of such pamphlets, he had identified the accused
persons. In Paragraph No.58, this witness admits that neither in the FIR
(Exhibit P/1) nor in his case diary statement (Exhibit D/9), he had not
mentioned physical attributes of the unknown pe
persons.
rsons. In Paragraph No.60,
this witness states that he cannot say as to whether the CCTV cameras have
been installed in his office or not.
31. As far as the argument of Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior
Advocate is concerned that handwritten copy of the FIR was not produced,
is irrelevant because Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) states that he had seen
report being typed on the computer. In Paragraph No.74, Mahesh Chourasia
(PW.1) admits that as to after how many days of the incident, the accused
persons were identified,
tified, could not be recalled by him. However, he admits
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
that Test Identification Parade vide Exhibit P/16 was carried out on
3.5.2019 while the Test Identification Parade vide Exhibits P/9, P/10 &
P/12 was carried out on 14.5.2019. In Paragraph No.75, thi
thiss witness admits
that the name of Sandeep, Sukendra Athiya, Raja and Akash were not
mentioned in the FIR. He states that he had not mentioned their physical
attributes also in the FIR. In Paragraph No.117, this witness states that he
has no information thatt on the date of the incident, Shivcharan Patel had
lodged a report saying that the CCTV cameras from the spot be seized and
a false implication is being made against several persons. In Paragraph
No.118, he denies the fact that the SDOP, Hatta had seized the CCTV
cameras from the damar plant. This witness admits that he had not recorded
the name of Aanish Khan S/o.Guddu Khan and Anish Pathan S/o.Ajim
Pathan in the FIR. In Paragraph No.144, this witness admits that when
Devendra and Somesh were being beate
beaten,
n, he had not gone to save them due
to fear and in Paragraph No.145, he admits that there were no injury marks
on the face and head of either deceased Devendra or injured Somesh. In
Paragraph No.199, this witness admits that in his report (Exhibit P/1) and
the statement (Exhibit D/1), he did not mention about presence of Santosh
and Pradeep Chourasia at the place of the incident. This witness admits that
the deceased Devendra was his younger brother whereas Somesh is son of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
deceased Devendra. In Paragraph N
No.207,
o.207, this witness admits that he had
not given any written complaint to the police personnel.
32. Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) is the injured witness. He had given a
dying declaration vide Exhibit P/19 on 15.3.2019 at 8:15 PM where
Dr.D.S.Chouhan had certified that he was in a position to record dying
declaration. In his dying declaration, this witness had taken names of Golu
@ Deependra Thakur, Govind, Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh, Shriram
Sharma, Indrapal Patel, Lokesh Patel, Arvind, Amjad. He states that his
father was a regular and active member of the Bahujan Samaj Party. On
12.3.2019, they had joined th
thee Congress Party, therefore, Rambai Parihar,
who was MLA from the Bahujan Samaj Party, thought that she might lose
her political authority and, therefore, they were attacked by the family
members of Rambai Parihar. He states that when he and his father wer
were
standing in Siddhi Vinayak Dharamkanta Campus then 30-35
30 armed
persons had come. They had fired certain shots in air. Thereafter, they were
beaten by dandas, pipes and rods. He had identified three persons at Hatta
Jail, namely, Vikram, Khoobchand and Sukendra
Sukendra Athiya vide Exhibits P/20,
P/21 and P/22. At Sagar Jail, he had identified Sandeep, Raja Don @
Rajendra, Balveer Thakur, Bhansingh, Akash, Aanish Khan S/o.Guddu
Khan and Anish Pathan S/o.Ajim Pathan, Monu Tantuvay, Sohail for which
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
identification panchnamas Exhibits P/5, P/6, P/7, P/8, P/9, P/10, P/11, P/12,
P/13, P/14 were prepared.
33. Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) in his cross
cross-examination
examination admits that on
registration of a case for impersonation in VYAPAM, he had left his MBBS
course. He states that he and his father were granted bail in that matter at a
Special Court at Bhopal. In Paragraph No.26, this witness admits that after
reading his dying declaration (Exhibit P/19), he had put his signatures on
the dying declaration. In Paragraph No.27, this wit
witness
ness admits that at about
3:30 PM, he had learnt about the death of his father. In his dying
declaration (Exhibit P/19), he had not mentioned that because of pain and
agony, he was not able to record complete statement. In Paragraph No.30,
this witness admits
its that in his dying declaration (Exhibit P/19), he had not
recorded a fact that "Sohail Khan, Mazhar Pathan, Shahrukh Pathan,
Aanish Khan S/o.Guddu Khan and Anish Pathan S/o.Ajim Pathan, Monu
Tantuvay, Balveer Thakur, Raja Don, Sukendra Athiya, Khoobchand
Khoobchan Patel,
Vikram Singh, Bhansingh, Akash Singh and Sandeep Tomar are known to
him by name and face".
34. In Paragraph No.43, Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) admits that from the
time of the incident till recording of the declaration at Shalby Hospital,
Jabalpur, he had not informed anybody about the incident. In Paragraph
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
No.52, this witness states that he cannot give definite description of the
assailants. On his own, he states that 24
24-25
25 persons had beaten them. He
further states that he does not remember any spec
special
ial sign or mark with
regard to the identified persons but, however, he states that since the
incident is running through his mind for last two years, therefore, he could
identify all the accused persons.
35. In Paragraph No.58, Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) adm
admits that the
documents, copies of which were obtained, contain photo and footage of
the accused persons. The footages are of the date of incident. They are from
a camera from Baijnath Dham Colony. He admits that he had seen the
footage and CD and, therefor
therefore,
e, it is evident that in the light of this part of
the evidence that the dock identification of the accused persons were made
after the appellants had seen the CCTV footage and CD etc containing
photographs etc of the accused persons, such dock identificat
identification
ion is rendered
inadmissible in the eyes of law.
36. In Paragraph No.62, Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) admits that in the
Dharamkanta Parishar upto his office except for he himself, his father and
Mahesh, nobody else was present. In Paragraph No.76, this witness admits
that when his father had fallen down then on his call, Mahesh had arrived.
Thereafter, when the assailants had left the place of the incident then
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
Ashok, Praveen, Santosh and Dassu had reached the place of the incident.
Thus, infact the injured wit
witness
ness Somesh and his uncle, the author of the
FIR, Mahesh, are only two witnesses to the incident and others have been
planted subsequently.
37. In Paragraph No.85, Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) admits that Golu @
Deependra Thakur had not made any use of firearm i.e.mouser at the place
of the incident. He admits that nobody had used the firearm at the place of
the incident. In Paragraph No.110, this witness admits that earlier he had
given a statement to the effect that "it is correct to say that the police was
going
ing ahead with its proceedings and was making different persons as
accused, who were treated to be correct by us" was stated by him in hurry
and he wanted to say something else, namely, "after identification of the
accused, he used to decide as to whether they were accused or not". This u-
u
turn taken by this witness and that too not immediately but after the lunch
break appears to be unnatural.
38. In Paragraph No.118, Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) admits that in his
dying declaration (Exhibit P/19), he had falsel
falselyy mentioned the incident of
firing in air. In Paragraph No.127, this witness admits that at the time of the
incident, the CCTV cameras were installed at the damar plant. He admits
that the CCTV footage was seized by the police personnel. In Paragraph
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
No.140,
0, he states that while giving the dying declaration (Exhibit P/19), he
had not mentioned that the persons, who are not named in the dying
declaration, if are made to appear, then he can identify them. He admits that
in his dying declaration (Exhibit P/19)
P/19),, he had not mentioned as to which of
the accused had beaten him and his father Devendra with which of the
weapons. In Paragraph No.146, this witness denies that at the time of the
incident, there were CCTV cameras installed in his office.
39. In Paragraph No.170, Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) admits that from the
time of the incident till the death of his father Devendra, he had no
conversation with Devendra. He admits that at the time of the incident, his
father was having a mobile phone in his hand, which had fallen down but
was never recovered. He admits that he had no conversation with the doctor
at Damoh Hospital. He states that he had not given any detail to the doctor
at a hospital at Jabalpur also. In Paragraph No.176, this witness admits that
how the incident
ident took place and who had given effect to the incident was
narrated by him for the first time at Shalby Hospital where his dying
declaration was recorded. In Paragraph No.183, he admits that several
Youtube videos were broadcasted in the matter, which w
were
ere seen by this
witness on several occasions. He admits that when he had reached the Sub
Jail Hatta then identification was not carried out immediately. This witness
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
like Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) admits that since the incident took place on
Friday, the damar
ar plant was closed.
40. In Paragraph No.201, Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) admits that in
Exhibit D/9, the medical report of Shalby Hospital, it is mentioned that
unknown person had caused beating then it is stated that it does not contain
signature of the person,
son, who had received the report. This witness denies a
suggestion that he and his uncle Sanjay Chourasia had informed the doctor
that the incident was given effect to by the unknown persons. This witness
admits that in his dying declaration (Exhibit P/19)
P/19),, the name of Arvind
Singh is wrongly mentioned infact another name of Golu is Deependra
Thakur and, therefore, by mistake, the name of Arvind Singh was
mentioned.
41. The other witnesses are admittedly not eye-witnesses
eye witnesses to the incident
as admitted by Somesh
sh Chourasia (PW.2) and he has admitted only
presence of Mahesh Chourasia, deceased Devendra and that of himself,
therefore, there is no point of discussing hearsay evidence of the other
witnesses.
42. Dr.Sourabh Jain (PW.9) had carried out the MLC of Devendra
Deve and
Somesh Chourasia and had found following injuries on the body of
Devendra:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
01:- ,
,
02:-
, 3x0.5 cm
,
03:- ,
dze'k%05cmX0.5cm 03cmX0.5cm ekl
,
04:- , dze'k%
06cmX4cm 08cmX4cm , .
05:- 04 ,
05cmX3cm
06:- ,
03cmX0.5cm
07:- ,
20cmX4cm 07cmX3cm ,
08:- ,
4cmX2cm
09:- ,
05cmX2cm 20cmX2cm ,
10:-
, 06cmX3cm
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
11:- ,
12:- ,
,
43. Dr.Sourabh Jain (PW.9) had given opinion that the injury Nos.2 to 10
were caused by hard and blunt object. Injury Nos.5,6,8,&10 were general in
nature. Injury No.1 was caused by sharp and hard object. The doctor had
advised X-ray
ray and referred the patient to the surgical opinion.
44. Dr.Sourabh Jain (PW.9) had found following injuries on the body of
Somesh Chourasia:-
01:- ,
10cmX2cm ,
02:- ,
6cmX2cm ,
03:- ,
05cmX3cm
04:- ,
2cmX0.5cm
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
05:- ,
20cmX2cm ,
06:- , dze'k%
05cmX3cm 3cmX2cm
07:- ,
20cmX2cm 15cmX2cm ,
08:- , 06cmX2cm
,
09:- ,
06cmX3cm
10:- ,
2cmX1cm
11:- ,
3cmX1.5cm
12:- ,
5cmX2cm
ekS
06 03,
04, 06, 09, 10, 11, 12 lkekU; 01, 02, 05,
08, 07
. . .
. .41 ,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
45. Dr.Sourabh Jain (PW.9) had given opinion that the injuries were
caused by hard and blunt object within six hours of the incident. Injury
Nos.3,4,6,9,10,11,12 were general in nature. The nature of injury
Nos.2,5,7,8 could have been decided after X
X-ray only. He had not seen any
injury on any of the vital part of the body. The doctor in Paragraph No.30
of his cross-examination
examination states that he had received a letter, an iron belcha,
three white colour plastic pipes, four baseball bats, two bamboo sticks, one
spadee and one iron rod asking as to whether the injuries found on the body
of the injured could have been caused with those objects, which were
answered by him in affirmative vide query report (Exhibit P/42). Similar
facts were asked with regard to Somesh Chourasia
Chourasia which too were
answered by the doctor in affirmative vide Exhibit P/43. In cross
cross-
examination, this witness admits that the condition of both the patients
were not good. He had not asked the injured as to who had beaten them.
The injured had also not informed them as to who had beaten them.
46. Dr.R.L.Thakuriya (PW.33) had examined Devendra Chourasia, who
was brought in a dead condition to Shalby Hospital, Jabalpur for which he
had given intimation to Vijay Nagar Police vide Exhibit P/146. The doctor
had
ad also examined injured Somesh. It was revealed that the injured was
beaten in the campus of Siddhi Vinayak Dharamkanta. He had lost
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
consciousness for about 30 minutes. When examined, he was conscious.
His blood pressure was 110/70. His pulse was 100 per minute. The doctor
had found the following injuries on his person:
person:-
. 01- 4 3 .
. 02- 2 . 1.5
. 03- 2 , 1
. 04- 3 . 2 .
. 05- 3 . 2 .
. 06- 2 . 1.5 .
. 07- 2 . 1 .
. 08- 4 . 2.5 .
. 09- 3 . 1.5 .
. 10- 12 . 4 .
. 11-
47. Dr.R.L.Thakuriya (PW.33) admits that the uncle of Somesh, namely,
Sanjay had informed him that they were beaten by the unknown persons on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
which the report Exhibit P/9 was prepared. He admits that in his MLC
report (Exhibit P/147), he had not mentioned as to which of the injuries
were sustained with which of the objects. He admits that the time of
preparation of report Exhibit P/147 is not mentioned.
48. Dr.Vivek Shrivastava
stava (PW.34) had conducted the postmortem on the
body of deceased Devendra alongwith Dr.Abhishek Singh and Dr.Mukesh
Agrawal and had found stitched wounds on the lower part of both the legs.
The cause of death was excessive blood loss, neurogenic shock an
and
multiple injuries caused with hard and blunt object. The duration of death
was 12 hours when the postmortem was performed. All the injuries were
antemortem and homicidal. They all were sufficient in the normal course of
nature to cause death. He admits tthat
hat there were no injuries on the vital
organs like head, chest and lungs. The doctor, however, states that the heart
of Devendra was normal.
49. Dr.Anupam Shrivastava (PW.35) was posted as Radiologist at Shalby
Hospital, Jabalpur on 15.3.2019 and he had ccarried
arried out CT scan brain of
Somesh Chourasia.
50. Bhumika Pandey (PW.37) states that she was working as Tahsildar at
the relevant point of time and had recorded dying declaration of Somesh
Chourasia as contained in Exhibit P/19.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
51. Assistant Sub Inspector B.M.Choubey (PW.39) is the author of the
FIR (Exhibit P/1) lodged by Mahesh in which Mahesh had taken the names
of Chandu Singh, Govind Singh, Golu @ Deependra Thakur, Shriram
Sharma, Amjad Pathan @ Bootha, Lokesh and Indrapal as the accused
persons. He states
tates that the injured persons were beaten with rods and
lathis. This witness states that Mahesh had given oral intimation. He admits
that without seeing the MLC, he had recorded the FIR under Section 307 of
the I.P.C. He admits that it is not mentioned in
in MLC (Exhibit P/41) as to at
what time, it was received in the police station. He admits delay of about 3
hours 55 minutes in lodging of the FIR. He admits that in the FIR (Exhibit
P/1), it is not mentioned that Amjad Pathan @ Bootha was armed with
which of the weapons. He admits that there is some typographical error
where accused Indrapal is mentioned as Indal. In Paragraph No.17, this
witness denies a suggestion that any rough noting of the incident was made
by him. This contradicts the submission made by Shri Surendra Singh,
learned Senior Counsel that the FIR (Exhibit P/1) is not to be treated as a
valid document in absence of Kachcha writing on the basis of which the
FIR was recorded.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
52. When all these facts and evidence that has come on record is ttaken
into consideration then firstly the delay of about 3 hours 55 minutes in
lodging of the FIR cannot be said to be fatal.
53. Reliance is placed by Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for two of the appellants on the judgment of the Apex
A Court in
Sevi & Another versus State of Tamil Nadu & Others (supra) to contend
that an officer-in-charge
charge of a police station should not carry FIR book with
him to the place of occurrence. The aforesaid judgment has no relevance to
the facts & circumstances
nces of the present case because it is nobody's case
that the Investigating Officer had taken the FIR book for lodging of the FIR
to the site. In the present case, admittedly, the FIR was lodged at the police
station by Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1).
54. Reliancee is placed on the judgment of this Hon'ble High Court in
Lallusingh S/o.Jagdishsingh Samgar versus State of Madhya Pradesh
(supra) to contend that the prosecution should not withhold the evidence
collected during investigation. In the present case, there is no such
allegation of withholding of evidence in the hands of the prosecutor and,
therefore, even the ratio of law laid down by a Division Bench of this
Hon'ble High Court in Lallusingh S/o.Jagdishsingh Samgar versus State
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
of Madhya Pradesh (supra) is off no avail to the facts & circumstances of
the present case.
55. As far as Short Note 113 in case of Parashram versus State of
Madhya Pradesh (supra) is concerned, it is held that if FIR is not
produced by the prosecution in the Trial Court then conviction is bad-in-
law has no application to the facts & circumstances of the present case.
56. As far as the law laid down in U.Sree versus U.Srinivas (supra) is
concerned, it deals with a case of permanent alimony and also on the aspect
of how secondary evidence is required to be adduced, again has no
application to the facts & circumstances of the present case.
57. Similarly, in H.Siddiqui (dead) by LRs versus A.Ramalingam
(supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the aspect of secondary evidence
again is not in question before this Court and, therefore, this judgment too
is of no assistance to the appellants.
58. As far as Mayur Panabhai Shah versus State of Gujarat (supra) is
concerned, the ratio of law in that case is that there is no irrebuttable
presumption that
hat the doctor as eye-witness
eye witness is truthful witness. In the
present case, there is no such pleading that there was any falsehood in the
testimony of Dr.Vivek Shrivastava (PW.34), who conducted the
postmortem of deceased Devendra, therefore, the ratio of law laid down in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
Mayur Panabhai Shah versus State of Gujarat (supra) is also not
available to the facts & circumstances of the present case.
59. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Das
versus State of Maharashtra (supra) to contend thatt if two inferences are
possible, the Court should accept one, which favours the accused but in the
present case in view of the testimony of Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) and
Somesh Chourasia (PW.2), as far as the acts of seven accused persons,
namely, Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh, Govind, Golu @ Deependra
Thakur, Shriram Sharma, Amjad Pathan @ Bootha, Lokesh Singh, Indrapal
Patel, are concerned, there is no iota of doubt and, therefore, the aforesaid
judgment will help only the other accused persons/convicted appellants
app and
not these seven as mentioned hereinabove.
60. Thus, when the ratio of law laid down in Ram Das versus State of
Maharashtra (supra) is applied then benefit of doubt can be extended in
favour of those, whose names are not mentioned in the FIR (Exhibit P/1)
and also in the dying declaration and not to the others, who have been
specifically named in the FIR (Exhibit P/1) and the dying declaration
decla
(Exhibit P/19) respectively.
61. There is a caveat in Exhibit P/19 as explained by Somesh Chourasia
(PW.2) that Arvind Singh has been erroneously mentioned and, therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
except for Arvind Singh, all others being same as are mentioned in the FIR
(Exhibit
xhibit P/1) and it is not the case of the defence that Mahesh Chourasia
(PW.1) had time to tutor the injured witness Somesh Chourasia (PW.2)
inasmuch as admittedly, Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) was at Damoh/Hatta
whereas Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) was getting trea
treatment
tment at Jabalpur and
the dying declaration (Exhibit P/19) was recorded at Jabalpur. There is
independent corroboration of the name of the aforesaid seven accused
persons, therefore, we are of the opinion that benefit of doubt, which
accrued in favour of the
he accused persons other than aforesaid seven accused
persons.
62. Reliance is placed on Sheikh Meheboob @ Hetak & Others versus
State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein it is held that how appreciation of
evidence is to be carried out. It says that if first contemporaneous
contemporaneous document
in the form of written report lodged by the father of the deceased to the
police is not produced on record then it raises a doubt against the
prosecution case and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt but in
the present case,
se, the FIR is available on record and the Investigating
Officer B.M.Choubey (PW.39) has categorically denied receiving of a
written complaint from Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1). Similarly, Mahesh
Chourasia (PW.1) too has denied giving any written complaint to the
t police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
official, therefore, the ratio of law laid down in Sheikh Meheboob @
Hetak & Others versus State of Maharashtra (supra) wouldnot be
applicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case.
63. In B.K.Channappa versus State of Karnataka (supra),
(supra the ratio of
law laid down by the Apex Court is that in face of contradictions and
discrepancies especially when witnesses were examined after a gap of five
years of the alleged occurrence then appreciation of evidence requires that
the contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments should
be correctly appreciated.
64. In the present case, we have discarded the testimony of all other so
called family members and other eye-witnesses
eye witnesses except Mahesh Chourasia
(PW.1), who is author of the FI
FIR
R and Somesh Chourasia (PW.2), who is an
injured eye-witness
witness in view of the testimony of Somesh Chourasia (PW.2)
that at the time of the incident in the campus of damar plant starting from
weighbridge (Dharamkanta), only two persons were available besides the
deceased Devendra, namely, Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) himself and on his
raising alarm, Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1), who was answering the call of
nature had reached the place of the incident when the accused had run
away.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
65. We have carefully considered the testimony of Mahesh Chourasia
(PW.1) and Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) so also the material recoveries
corroborated by the concerned doctor through his query reports (Exhibits
P/43 & P/44) and when the ratio of law laid down in B.K.Channappa
versus State of Karnataka
nataka (supra) is applied to the facts & circumstances
of the present case then involvement of the seven named accused persons
forming an unlawful assembly cannot be discarded or disbelieved.
66. As far as the law laid down in Ramsai and others versus State
Stat of
Madhya Pradesh (supra) is concerned, it deals with the contradictions in
the oral dying declaration. Learned Trial Court already rejected one set of
oral dying declaration and we are of the opinion that both sets of oral dying
declaration allegedly given
ven by the deceased Devendra at Abhana have been
rightly discarded by learned Trial Court in Paragraph 205 of the impugned
judgment referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Bodh Raj @
Bodha & Others versus State of Jammu & Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45
and,, therefore, once the Trial Court has rejected the oral dying declaration
of deceased Devendra, who later on succumbed to the injuries and we are
also of the opinion that starting from Dr.Sourabh Jain (PW.9) to
Dr.R.L.Thakuriya (PW.33), the deceased Devend
Devendra
ra was not in a condition
to record oral dying declaration or otherwise, therefore, in absence of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
conviction being based on the testimony of the oral dying declaration, the
judgment of the Apex Court in Bodh Raj @ Bodha & Others versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir (supra) too is not of any assistance to the
appellants.
67. Shri Sharad Verma, Shri Sankalp Kochar, Shri Dinesh Kumar
Upadhyay, Ms.Smita Varma, Shri Neeraj Pathak, Ms.Shikha Dwivedi,
Advocates appearing for the other accused persons place reliance
relianc on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Harihar Prasad Prasad Etc versus State
of Bihar (supra) wherein the ratio of law is that if chances of repetition of
offence are remote then circumstances exist for awarding a lenient
sentence.
68. A plea has been taken by Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate
supported by other learned counsel appearing for the accused persons that
all the injuries were caused on non
non-vital
vital parts and, therefore, the case will
fall under Section 304 of the I.P.C. In th
this
is regard, the judgment of the Apex
Court in Virsa Singh versus State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 is relevant
wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 has noted as under:-
under:
"12. To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the
following facts before iitt can bring a case under S. 300,
"thirdly";
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily
injury is present;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved;
These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that ththere
ere was an intention to
inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it
was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other
kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the
enquiry proceeds further aand,
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type
just described made up of the three elements set out
above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective
and inferential and has not
nothing
hing to do with the intention
of the offender.
13. Once these four elements are established by the
prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the
prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under
S.300 "thirdly". It does not matter that there was no
intention to cause death. It does not matter that there
was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that
is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature (not that there is any real distinction between the
two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge
that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death.
Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually
found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is
purely objective and the only question is whether, as a
matter
er of purely objective inference, the injury is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. No one has a licence to run around inflicting
injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature and claim that they are nnot ot guilty of
murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must
face the consequences; and they can only escape if it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
can be shown, or reasonably deduced, that the injury
was accidental or otherwise unintentional."
69. Thus, it is evident that the ddefence
efence was required to make a case to
escape from the consequences to show that the injury was accidental or
otherwise unintentional.
70. When the aforesaid aspect is taken into consideration in the light of
the evidence of Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) and Somesh
Somesh Chourasia (PW.2),
Dr.Sourabh Jain (PW.9), Dr.R.L.Thakuriya (PW.33) & Dr.Vivek
Shrivastava (PW.34) then it cannot be said that the injuries sustained by the
deceased Devendra were either accidental or otherwise unintentional,
therefore, the plea of learn
learned
ed counsel for the accused persons that the case
will fall under Section 304 of the I.P.C is not made out.
71. In Madhu Limaye versus State of Maharashtra (supra), the ratio
of law is that inherent power may be invoked for quashing interlocutory
orders but we fail to understand that how this judgment will be applicable
to the facts & circumstances of the present case.
72. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Kehar Singh & Others versus State (Delhi Administration) (supra) but
wee fail to understand that how the aforesaid judgment will be applicable to
the facts & circumstances of the present case when the Apex Court has
categorically held that agreement between parties to do illegal act itself is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
punishable and performance of ill
illegal
egal act pursuant to the illegal agreement
is not necessary.
73. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Heikujam
Chaoba Singh versus State of Manipur (supra) on the aspect of
evidentiary value of the dying declaration to the effect that the
th dying
declaration without corroboration is not admissible. However, in the present
case, the dying declaration of Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) is not read as a
dying declaration but as his previous statement and is being used for
limited purpose of omissions and contradictions.
74. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of Radha Mohan Singh
@ Lal Saheb & Others versus State of U.P. (supra) wherein it is held
that in case of members of the unlawful assembly had no common object to
murder the deceased or that members of the unlawful assembly knew that
the murder was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object
of the assembly then
en conviction from one under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the I.P.C can be converted to one under Section 326 read
with Section 149 of the I.P.C.
75. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Noor @
Nooruddin versus State of Karnataka (supra), it is a judgment on
Section 34 of the I.P.C dealing with common intention whereas we are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
dealing with aspect of Section 149 of the I.P.C i.e. common object,
therefore, the judgment of Noor @ Nooruddin versus State of Karnataka
(supra) has no application
ication to the facts & circumstances of the present case.
76. In Balwant Singh versus State of Haryana (1972) 3 SCC 769, it is
held by the Apex Court that when injuries are caused in prosecution of
common object of all accused persons armed with deadly weapons
weapons to cause
grievous hurt then even assuming that particular accused was not author of
the injury, it does not exculpate him.
77. In Malempati Pattabi Narendra versus Ghattamaneni Maruthi
Prasad AIR 2000 SC 2195
2195,, it is held by the Apex Court that conviction
convict of
the assailant or assailants, who inflicted grievous injuries, which resulted in
the death of the victim cannot be limited to Section 326. Such assailants
cannot escape from conviction under Section 302 at least with the help of
Section 34 if not with
th Section 149 IPC. In the present case, ratio of the
aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable and, therefore, plea of leniency or
alteration of conviction is not made out.
78. In Anand Ramachandra Chougule versus Sidarai Laxman
Chougala & Others (supra), the Apex Court has held that unfair
investigation will vitiate trial but in the present case, we do not find any
element of unfair or biased investigation favouring deceased/injured.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
79. Similarly, in Ankush Maruti Shinde & Others versus S
State of
Maharashtra (supra), the Apex Court has held that impartial and truthful
investigation is imperative but in the present case, since no lacunas have
been brought to our notice in conduction of the investigation then the ratio
of law laid down in Ankush
Ankush Maruti Shinde & Others versus State of
Maharashtra (supra) will not be applicable to the facts & circumstances
of the present case.
80. In Amar Singh versus State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), the ratio of
law laid down by the Apex Court is that the testimony
testimony of sole eye
eye-witness
can be used only when it is wholly reliable.
81. In the present case, the defence has tried to point out that at Shalby
Hospital, Jabalpur, earlier at the time of the admission, it was mentioned
that the assailants were unknown and la
later
ter on the dying declaration was
recorded in the evening where Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) gave the names of
certain persons but it is an admitted fact that Sanjay Chourasia (PW.45),
who got Somesh and Devendra admitted in the hospital, is not an eye
eye-
witness. If he was not knowing the chronology of events and the incident
then a statement attributed to him and not to the injured Somesh Chourasia
cannot be used against them.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
82. Besides this, there is independent corroboration of two eye-witnesses,
eye
namely, Mahesh
h Chourasia (PW.1) and Somesh Chourasia (PW.2)
recording statements at two different places at two different points of time
before two different authorities and to that extent the dying declaration
(Exhibit P/19) to the extent it corroborates with the FIR (Exhibit P/1) is
acceptable in the eyes of law.
83. In Mahendra Singh & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh
(supra), the Apex Court has held that there are three types of witnesses,
namely,(a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; (c) neither wholly re
reliable
nor wholly unreliable and when the witness is wholly reliable, the Court
should not have any difficulty inasmuch as conviction or acquittal could be
based on the testimony of such single witness.
84. In the present case, Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) and Somesh Chourasia
(PW.2) are wholly reliable witnesses. Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) is infact an
injured witness and when his testimony is analyzed and corroboration is
found in the testimony of Mahesh Chourasia (PW.1) then we are of the
opinion that their testimony
imony is sufficient to record the finding of conviction
to great extent as far as seven named accused persons are concerned.
85. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh &
Another versus State of Karnataka (supra)
(supra),, which deals with reversal
re of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
findings by the High Court. The High Court had reversed the finding of
acquittal recorded by the Trial Court but the facts being different, the ratio
of law laid down in Ramesh & Another versus State of Karnataka
(supra) too will not be applicabl
applicablee to the facts & circumstances of the
present case as far as seven named accused persons are concerned.
86. As far as ratio of law laid down in Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu
versus State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) is concerned, it provides that
when dying declaration
eclaration is inherently not reliable then benefit of doubt
should be extended. Even the judgment of Jitendra Kumar Mishra @
Jittu versus State of Madhya Pradesh (supra)
(supra) too will not be applicable
to the facts & circumstances of the present case.
87. The defence
efence examined Shailendra Singh S/o. Mahipal Singh Parihar,
who states that he is innocent. The warrant was issued against Shailu
Thakur S/o. Nepal Thakur, but fact of the matter is that this Court has
recorded acquittal for Shailendra Singh Parihar. He has only stated about
himself and has not said anything about absence of other seven accused
persons, whose conviction is being maintained. Hence, the testimony of
Shailendra Singh Parihar (DW.1) as far as other seven accused persons are
concerned, is of no assistance.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
88. The defence examined Monu @ Jaikumar Tantuvay as DW.2. He too
has been acquitted by this Court as his name was not mentioned in the FIR
so also in the dying declaration. This witness too has not stated anything
about others, therefore,, in view of his acquittal recorded by this Court, his
testimony cannot be read beyond his own case.
89. The defence examined Anees Khan as DW.3. He too has not stated
anything about others.
90. The defence examined Shivcharan Patel as DW.4 and he has also
als not
stated anything about others. This witness in his testimony states that he
had given an application Exhibit D/36 in writing to the Superintendent of
Police containing his signatures for seizure of CCTV cameras installed at
the place of the incident. When no action was taken on his application and
the complainant had destroyed the evidence then he had made an
application to the Member of Parliament, Prahlad Patel and on the basis of
which, Prahlad Patel had written a letter to the Superintendent of Po
Police,
Damoh. However, he submits that when no action was taken against the
complainant party for destroying the evidence of CCTV footage then he
had filed Writ Petition No.9512/2019 (Exhibit D/42) before the High Court
in which vide order dated 13.05.201
13.05.2019,
9, the High Court had directed the
Superintendent of Police to take action, but he stated that in terms of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
directions of the High Court, the CCTV camera was seized, but it was
neither played nor any inquiry was conducted in that behalf. Thereafter, he
had given a letter to His Excellency, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh to
the effect that his son, namely, Indrapal Patel was being falsely implicated.
91. Shivcharan Patel (DW.4) admits that at earlier point of time, he was
Mandal Adhyaksh of Bhartiya Janta Party and he had enmity with
Devendra Chourasia, who was a worker of Bahujan Samaj Party. However,
it is evident from his testimony recorded in Paragraph No.4 that this
witness was not present at the time of the incident and when on way to
Bhopal, he was near Sagar at about 2:00 Noon, he had received intimation
that unknown persons had attacked Devendra and Somesh at Siddhi
Vinayak Dharamkanta and his son was sought to be falsely implicated. His
contention is that because of political rivalry, his son ha
hass been falsely
implicated. However, in cross
cross-examination,
examination, this witness admits that after
decision in the Writ Petition on 13.5.2019, he had not filed any application
under Right to Information Act but had moved an application after five
years on 12.08.2024 vide Exhibit D/48. In Paragraph No.18 of his cross
cross-
examination, this witness admits possessing of black colour Duster Vehicle.
92. Praveen Sharma (DW.5) is son of Shriram Sharma. He has deposed
about false implication on account of political rivalry.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
93. But, both these witnesses i.e. Shivcharan Patel (DW.4) and Praveen
Sharma (DW.5) have not discharged their burden in support of their plea of
alibi of absence of Indrapal and Shriram Sharma, Surendra Singh Parihar
(DW.6), Sangeet Singh (DW.7), Ajay Tomar (DW.8), have given evidence
to the effect that on 15.03.2019, he had gone to Village Hanauta for
preparation of Loksabha election as wife of Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh
was given ticket of Bahujan Samaj Party and then stated that Chandu @
Kaushalendra Singh
gh had taken meeting at Village Hanauta on 15.03.2019 at
10:00 A.M., which was Panchayat meeting upto 12:00 Noon, but this
evidence does not fulfil the requirements of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Pappu Tiwary versus State of Jharkhand (2022) 17 SCC 664
wherein referring to Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is held
that in case of plea of alibi burden of proof is upon the accused and the
accused is required to prove such plea with certainty so as to completely
exclude the possibility of its presence on the spot. On facts, if plea of alibi
is not proved then no benefit can be accrued in favour of the accused
person. Thus, it is evident that the accused persons failed to discharge their
burden of proving plea of alibi.
94. Thus, when the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court and cited by
learned counsel for the appellants is taken into consideration and tested in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
the backdrop of law laid down by the Apex Court in Nitya Nand versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra), admittedly,, seven persons,
who had reached the place of the incident, armed with deadly weapons like
rods, lathis and dandas, formed an unlawful assembly and since their
conviction is on the basis of constructive liability under Section 149 of the
I.P.C then it is evident
vident that since Section 149 of the I.P.C creates a
constructive vicarious liability on the members of the unlawful assembly
for the unlawful acts committed by any other members of such assembly
roping in every member of the assembly to be guilty for an ooffence,
ffence, where
that offence is committed by any member of that assembly in prosecution
of that or other members or assembly knew that offence is likely to be
committed in prosecution of that object.
95. Since seven of the accused persons, namely, Chandu @ Kaushalendra
K
Singh, Govind, Golu @ Deependra Thakur, Shriram Sharma, Amjad Pathan
@ Bootha, Lokesh Singh, Indrapal Patel have been named in the FIR
(Exhibit P/1) and their names are also mentioned in the dying declaration
(Exhibit P/19) given by Somesh Chou
Chourasia
rasia (PW.2), we are of the opinion
that they formed unlawful assembly and were pursuing a common object
and, therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Nitya
Nand versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra), the finding of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
conviction of Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh, Govind Singh, Golu @
Deependra Thakur, Shriram Sharma, Amjad Pathan @ Bootha, Lokesh
Singh, Indrapal Patel recorded by learned II Additional Sessions Judge
Judge-
Hatta, Sessions Division
Division-Damoh
Damoh in Sessions Trial No.30/2019
No.30/20 vide
impugned judgment dated 30.11.2024 for the offence under Sections 148,
302 read with Section 149, 323 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C cannot be
faulted with. Therefore, the conviction and sentence against the appellants
namely appellants Chandu @ Kaushalendra Singh, Govind Singh, Golu @
Deependra Thakur, Shriram Sharma, Amjad Pathan @ Bootha, Lokesh
Singh, Indrapal Patel is hereby affirmed and it is directed that these
appellants shall undergo remaining part of their jail sentence.
96. As far as the other accused persons, namely, Raja Don @ Rajendra,
Balveer Thakur, Aanish Khan S/o.Guddu Khan, Monu Tantuvay, Anish
Pathan S/o.Ajim Pathan, Sohail Khan S/o.Mohammad Haneef @ Hannu
Pathan, Shahrukh Khan, Bhansingh Parihar, Akash Thakur, Sandeep Tomar,
Khoobbchand @ Nanna, Vikram Singh, Sukendra Athiya, Mazhar Khan,
Kishan Singh, Sohail Khan S/o.Sabbbir Khan, Phuklu, Shailendra Singh
Parihar @ Shailu are concerned, in the FIR (Exhibit P/1), there is no
mention of other persons being aggressors or part ooff the unlawful assembly.
We are conscious that the FIR (Exhibit P/1) is not an encyclopaedia but we
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
are also conscious that absence of names of the other accused persons or
their physical description and then subsequently roping them in, on account
of political enmity, if allowed
allowed, to stand, then it will, amount to travesty of
justice.
97. It is also true that even Somesh Chourasia (PW.2) while recording the
dying declaration had taken names of the above seven accused persons. In
his cross-examination,
examination, he clarified
clarified that the name of Arvind Singh has been
wrongly mentioned under a mistaken notion and, therefore, when these two
documents are taken into consideration then conviction of the remaining
accused persons, namely, Raja Don @ Rajendra, Balveer Thakur, Aanish
Aa
Khan S/o.Guddu Khan, Monu Tantuvay, Anish Pathan S/o.Ajim Pathan,
Sohail Khan S/o.Mohammad Haneef @ Hannu Pathan, Shahrukh Khan,
Bhansingh Parihar, Akash Thakur, Sandeep Tomar, Khoobbchand @
Nanna, Vikram Singh, Sukendra Athiya, Mazhar Khan, Kishan Si
Singh,
Sohail Khan S/o.Sabbbir Khan, Phuklu, Shailendra Singh Parihar @ Shailu,
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the benefit of doubt needs to be
accorded in their favour. They be set at liberty forthwith if not required in
any other case.
98. Resultantly,
ltantly, Criminal Appeal No.14282/2024, Criminal Appeal
No.14287/2024, Criminal Appeal No.23/2025, Criminal Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
No.42/2025, Criminal Appeal No.213/2025, Criminal Appeal No.219/2025,
Criminal Appeal No.363/2025, Criminal Appeal No.1196/2025 are allowed.
Criminal Appeal No.13937/2024 as regards the appellants Sohail Khan
S/o.Sabbbir Khan, Mazhar Khan, Shahrukh Khan & Khoobbchand @
Nanna is allowed and as regards the appellants Shriram Sharma, Amjad
Pathan @ Bootha & Indrapal Patel is dismissed. Criminal Ap
Appeal
No.297/2025 as regards the appellants Bhansingh Parihar, Akash Thakur,
Sandeep Tomar, Sukendra Athiya & Phuklu is allowed and as regards the
appellants Govind Singh, Golu @ Deependra Thakur & Lokesh Singh is
dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.1087/2025 fil
filed
ed by the appellant Chandu @
Kaushalendra Singh is dismissed.
99. As far as Criminal Appeal No.2202/2025 & Criminal Revision
No.995/2025 filed by the complainant party seeking enhancement of
sentence to death penalty are concerned, there is no material on record to
concede their demand. There is no criminal history brought to our notice.
Even learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil Khare has failed to draw a
comparative statement of aggravating and mitigating circumstances to point
out that how aggravating circums
circumstances
tances outweigh the mitigating
circumstances so to show indulgence in the matter of modification of
sentence and, therefore, Criminal Appeal No.2202/2025 & Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:5124
Revision No.995/2025 filed at the behest of the complainant party deserve
to and are hereby dismissed.
100. Let record of the Trial Court be sent back.
(Vivek Agarwal) (Ramkumar Choubey)
Judge Judge
amit
AMITABH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH JABALPUR,
2.5.4.20=9a22104d0465a4dd4bb416a59f702
b292c9acc3c5bee38eeec9289e859ae9dcd,
ou=JABALPUR COURT,CID - 7033034,
RANJAN
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=3b3f864d95ad38f1841085486
b3199d5ad713a17685240784662b0c9bae62
69c, cn=AMITABH RANJAN
Date: 2026.01.22 15:17:54 +05'30'
