IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, Prakash Chandra Gupta, JJ.
Saroj Sen – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1438/2010 Criminal Appeal No. 2147/2010
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Criminal Conspiracy - Murder - IPC 302/120-B - The judgment discusses the prosecution's failure to prove criminal conspiracy against the accused Smt. Saroj Sen and the successful proof of intentional murder by the accused Mulchand. The court found that the trial court erred in convicting Smt. Saroj Sen and acquitted her, while altering the conviction and sentence of Mulchand from IPC 302/120B to IPC 302.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Ramratan Sen was found dead with multiple injuries. The prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy between the accused Smt. Saroj Sen and Mulchand to murder the deceased. The trial court convicted both accused under IPC 302/120-B based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove criminal conspiracy against Smt. Saroj Sen but successfully proved intentional murder by Mulchand. The trial court erred in convicting Smt. Saroj Sen and acquitted her, while altering the conviction and sentence of Mulchand from IPC 302/120B to IPC 302.
Issues: The main issue was the prosecution's failure to prove criminal conspiracy against Smt. Saroj Sen and the successful proof of intentional murder by Mulchand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove criminal conspiracy against Smt. Saroj Sen but successfully proved intentional murder by Mulchand based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by Smt. Saroj Sen was allowed, setting aside her conviction and sentence. She was acquitted and ordered to be set free immediately if not required in any other case. The appeal filed by Mulchand was partly allowed, altering his conviction and sentence from IPC 302/120B to IPC 302.
JUDGMENT
Prakash Chandra Gupta, J. - This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1438/2010 and Criminal No.2147/2010. Since the court below passed the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2010, which are arising of the same incident, on the joint request of the parties, these appeals were analogously heard and decided by this common judgment.
2. These criminal appeals are directed against the judgment dated 28.06.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.619/2009 passed by IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. The Court below convicted the appellants under section 302/120-B of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation to each of the appellants.
3. The prosecution story in nutshell is that one Sadaram (PW-14) gave intimation on 04.07.2009 to Police Station Pipalani, District Bhopal that one person is found dead near Dushehra ground and the dead body is full of blood, on this marg intimation (Ex.P/25) was registered. SHO R.R. Bansal (PW-18) on the same day i.e. 04.07.2009 at 8.30 am proceeded to the spot for the verification of the aforesaid intimation and found that a dead body was lying on Dushehra ground, in front of Akashwani Centre Jamboori. Pooran Singh (PW-5) identified that the body is of deceased Ramratan in presence of witnesses Sadaram (PW-14) and Achchhelal (PW-6). R.R. Bansal (PW-18) prepared Shinakhtagi Panchnama (Ex.P/13). R.R. Bansal (PW-18) after giving notice (Ex.P/10) prepared panchnama Lash (Ex. P/9). He also found that there are many cut injuries on the body of the deceased Ramratan. Therefore, he lodged a Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/29) at 09.15 am against unknown person and on the basis of the same he also lodged an FIR (Ex.P/27) on the same day at around 10 am against an unknown person.
4. During investigation on 04.07.2009, at 11 am at the instance of Sadaram (PW-14), R.R. Bansal (PW-18) prepared spot map (Ex.P/14) at 11.10 am. He seized a pair of blood stained sleeper of the deceased, one was worn by him in his right foot and another was lying near his head, one receipt of Patna Tent House, a purse of brown colour containing Rs.1,500/- and one more receipt, two bandeds, a cycle key and a diary from the pocket of his pant and prepared a seizure memo (Ex. P/15). At 11.20 am, he seized three water pouches, two disposal glasses, two caps of wine bottles, one pen, one lighter, one matchbox having few match sticks on the spot vide seizure memo (Ex.P/16). He handed over the body of the deceased along with the letter (Ex.P/26) to Constable Basant Shrivastava (PW-17) for post-mortem. On 04.07.2009 Dr.Vimla Prajapati (PW-19) conducted post-mortem and gave post-mortem report (Ex.P/33). Dr. Vimla Prajapati (PW-19) after taking clothes of the deceased, sealed the same and handed over to the concerning constable for further examination. Head Constable Dileram Yadav seized sealed packets of the clothes of deceased from Constable Basant Shrivastava (PW-17) vide seizure memo (Ex.P/28).
5. On 04.07.2009, at 11.30 am, R.R. Bansal (PW-18) seized blood stained soil and plain soil vide seizure memo (Ex.P/17) at 11.50 am, he also seized a bicycle of the deceased from Ratnagiri Chauraha in front of Desi Kalari Anand Nagar Piplani, Bhopal vide seizure memo (Ex.P/18).
6. On 05.07.2009 SHO R.R. Bansal (PW-18) taken custody of appellant/accused Mulchand at 05.00 pm. During interrogation appellant Mulchand has made statment before the witnesses that he hide the knife in a sewage at Bus Stand Bhopal, hidden bottles of wine and beer near the pile of garbage in Jamboori ground Bhopal, have hidden a mobile phone in his village Chauka, District-Raisen and he washe the clothes which he worn that day and is wearing the same clothes. R.R. Bansal (PW-18) prepared memorandum (Ex.P/2). He seized a blood stained T- Shirt and Jeans pant produced by the accused Mulchand vide seizure memo (Ex.P/6). At 5.20 pm on the personal search of the accused Mulchand, SHO R.R. Bansal (PW-18) seized Nokia mobile phon
Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others (1993) 3 SCC 609
Anvar P.V. vs P. K. Basheer and Others (2014) 10 SCC 473
Anwar Ali and Another Vs State of Himanchal Pradesh
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 1
Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan
K. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)
Krishnan and another Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police
Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120
Noor Mohammad Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra : (1970) 1 SCC 696
R.K.Dalmia and Anr. v. The Delhi Administration : 1963 1 SCR 253
Sanjiv Kumar Vs. State of H.P. (1999) 2 SCC 288
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Mahrashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793
Shivanarayan laxminarayan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors : (1980) 2 SCC 465
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai and Others
State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove criminal conspiracy beyond all reasonable doubts and the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establ....
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
The prosecution must establish a complete and cogent chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The court upheld convictions for murder and conspiracy despite reliance on circumstantial evidence, finding sufficient connections through uncorroborated testimony and addressing potential political ....
(1) Circumstantial evidence – It is necessary for prosecution that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot....
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, when established beyond reasonable doubt, can support convictions for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of evidence....
Section 120B of the IPC provides as Punishment of criminal conspiracy: Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous impris....
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.