Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia and Gajendra Singh, JJ.
Virendra Singh v. The State of M. P.
Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2001 (Indore): against the judgment dated 2.8.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Biaora in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1997; Decided on 19.2.2025
Bheemsen Soni for appellant;
H. S. Rathore, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Headnote:
(1) Procedure (Criminal) -- appellant-accused failed to lodge first information report and has not examined the person to whom he narrated incident -- does not exonerate prosecution from discharging primary burden of proving case beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 19
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302 and 201 -- appellant-accused explained that deceased was driving jeep in which seven passengers were travelling and jeep overturned -- all persons, including deceased, sustained injuries -- he took deceased to hospital but doctors refused to treat deceased without lodging FIR -- by that time, the partner in ownership of jeep came to hospital -- appellant-accused intimated him about accident and went to call DW-1 and bring quilt for deceased -- when he returned with DW-1 then neither deceased, nor jeep was there in the hospital so he returned home -- held -- explanation provided by appellant-accused for intervening period is proved by DW-1 -- there is no reason to disbelieve DW-1 as he is neither related to anyone, nor it is brought on record that he has any interest in screening appellant-accused from punishment -- motive that appellant-accused committed murder only to save himself from prosecution for accident, is not believable because accident occurred in presence of other persons, who also sustained injuries -- chain of circumstances not complete, from which conclusion can be drawn that within all human probability it is the appellant-accused who committed crime and cumulatively, circumstances exclude every possible hypothesis consistent with innocence of appellant-accused -- circumstance of last seen inconclusive -- trial Court not justified in convicting appellant-accused -- conviction set aside.
[Paras 6, 19 & 20
¼1½ çfØ;k ¼nkafMd½ && vihykFkhZ&vfHkqä us çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky ugha dh rFkk ml O;fä dh ijh{kk ugha dh ftls mlus ?kVuk dk o`Ùkkar lquk;k Fkk && blls vfHk;kstui{k ;qfä;qä lansg ls ijs ekeyk lkfcr djus ds çkFkfed Hkkj dk fuoZgu djus ls foeqä ugha gksrkA ¼iSjk 19
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302 rFkk 201 && vihykFkhZ vfHk;qä us Li"Vhdj.k fn;k fd e`rd thi pyk jgk Fkk] ftlesa lkr ;k=h ;k=k dj jgs Fks vkSj thi iyV xbZ && e`rd lesr lHkh O;fä;ksa dks {kfr;k¡ igq¡pha og e`rd dks fpfdRlky; ys x;k ijarq fpfdRldksa us çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky fd, fcuk e`rd dk mipkj djus ls bUdkj dj fn;k ml le; rd thi ds LokfeRo dk Hkkxhnkj fpfdRlky; vk x;k vihykFkhZ&vfHkqä us mls nq?kZVuk ds ckjs esa crk;k rFkk çlk&1 dks cqykus vkSj e`rd ds fy, jtkbZ ysus pyk x;k tc og çlk&1 ds lkFk ykSVk rc u rks e`rd fpfdRlky; esa Fkk vkSj u thi gh] rks og ?kj ykSV x;k && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && e/;orhZ vof/k ds fy, vihykFkhZ&vfHkqä }kjk fn;k x;k Li"Vhdj.k çlk&1 }kjk lkfcr fd;k x;k gS çlk&1 dk vfo'okl djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha D;ksafd og u rks fdlh dk ukrsnkj gS] u vfHkys[k ij ;g yk;k gh x;k fd vihykFkh&vfHkqä dks naM ls cpkus esa mldk dksbZ fgr gS ;g gsrq fo'okl;ksX; ugha fd vihykFkhZ&vfHkqä us Lo;a dks nq?kZVuk ds fy, vfHk;kstu ls cpkus ek= ds fy, gR;k dh] D;ksafd nq?kZVuk vU; O;fä;ksa dh mifLFkfr esa ?kVh Fkh vkSj mUgsa Hkh {kfr;k¡ igq¡ph Fkha && ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh J`a[kyk iw.kZ ugha] ftlls fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk lds fd leLr ekuoh; vf/klaHkkO;rkvksa esa og vihykFkhZ&vfHkqä gS ftlus vijk/k fd;k rFkk dqy feyk dj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls vihykFkhZ&vfHkqä dh funksZf'krk ls laxr çR;sd laHko çkDdYiuk vioftZr gksrh gS && vafre ckj ns[ks tkus dh ifjfLFkfr vfu.kk;Zd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vihykFkh&vfHkqä dks fl)nks"k Bgjk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha nks"kflf) vikLrA ¼iSjk 6] 19 ,oa 20
JUDGMENT
Singh, J. -- 1. This Criminal appeal under section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code is preferred challenging the conviction under section 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and four years rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently vide judgment dated 2.8.2001 in Sessions Case No. 67/97 by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Biaora.
2. Facts in brief are that appellant accused Virendrasingh was prosecuted under section 302 and 201 of IPC for committing the murder of Phoolsingh Meena in the intervening night of 13-14th December, 1996 at the Bank of Chhapi Dam of Zeerapur, District Rajgarh and disposing his body with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment.
3. The enforcement agency i.e. Police Station, Zeerapur, District Rajgarh came into motion on the information of Mangilal, Sarpanch of Panchayat Bamankheda that on 14.12.96 at 08:30 AM (Exhibit-P-1) one unknown dead body is lying naked with injuries on head and a stone is also lying nearby. Merg No. 41 of 1996 was registered. Dead body was forwarded for autopsy. The body was identified as Phoolsingh Meena S/o Nandram Meena, R/o Dhakariyapura vide Exhibit-P-22 on 18.12.1996 with the help of photograph and the ring worn by the deceased. During the inquiry the involvement of appellant accused came in light and Crime No. 279 of 1996 was registered against the appellant accused on 19.12.1996. The appellant accused was taken into custody on 27.12.1996 vide Exhibit-P-18. Memorandum of informationExhibit-P-14 was prepared on 18.12.1996 and one pant, one shoe of left leg and sweater was recovered from the river bridge of Chappi vide Exhibit-P-19 and quilt was recovered which was hidden between the bushes of Chappi Dam vide Exhibit-P-20. Properties were forwarded to FSL, Gwalior. Statements of witnesses were recorded and final report was submitted.
4. Appellant accused abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
5. To bring home the guilt prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses including Mangilal as PW-1, Kuwarlal S/o Nandram as PW-2, Jasrath Singh as PW-3, Kanwarlal, S/o Mangilal as PW-4, Laxminarayan as PW-5, Premsingh as PW-6, Assistant Surgeon Doctor C.M. Tripathi as PW-7, Gopal Sinhare as PW-8, Jaganath as PW-9, Patwari Shivlal Chourasiya as PW-10, Gaffar Khan as PW-11, Medical Officer Dr S.K. Bansal, Civil Hospital, Biaro as PW-12, Phoolsingh, S/o Chhotelal as PW-13, Chandsha as PW-14, Jagganath as PW-15, Sunil Sharma as PW-16, Rakesh Kumar Sharma as PW-17, Ramcharan Gotti as PW-18, Assistant Surgeon Doctor R.S. Saini as PW-19, Veerpal Singh as PW-20, Sub-Inspector Hemant Singh Sisodiya as PW-21 and Bhajan Singh as PW-22.
6. In examination under section 313 of the Cr.PC, the appellant accused denied almost all the facts appeared against him as evidence and explained that on the fateful day Phoolsingh was driving vehicle (jeep) in which seven passengers were boarded and jeep overturned and all persons sustained injuries and all persons including Phoolsingh sustained injuries in his hands legs and chest. He took Phoolsingh to Hospital, Biaora, but the concerned Doctors denied to treat the Phoolsingh without lodging the FIR. Till time, the partner in the ownership of jeep namely Sahoo came to the Government Hospital, Biaora with two companions. He intimated the Sahoo and went to Pratap Narayan Tripathi, Biaora. When he returned with Pratap Narayan Tripathi then neither Phoolsingh nor jeep was available in the Hospital, Biaora. He thereafter returned to his home at Biaora. He moved to participate in a marriage ceremony and when he was returning to Biaora after marriage ceremony then jeep was seized at Police station Khujneer because the driver of the jeep did not possess the documents of the jeep. He committed no offence. He examined Pratap Narayan Tripathi as DW-1, Roopsingh as DW-2 and Shivnath Singh as DW-3 in his defense.
7. Appreciating the evidence, trial Court found prove beyond reasonable doubt the circumstances as mentioned in Paragra
