Priyasharan Singh Thakur vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Avanindra Kumar Singh, JJ.
Priyasharan Singh Thakur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeals No. 7762 of 2019 and 407 of 2020 (Jabalpur): against the judgment dated 30.8.2019 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 900114 of 2014; Decided on 12.3.2025

Advocates:
Abhishek Arjaria for appellant;
Arvind Singh, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:
(1) Witness -- related witnesses -- related witnesses turned hostile with respect to co-accused and made allegation against appellant only -- however, in Dehati Nalishi, FIR and in statements recorded u/s. 161 of CrPC, all these witnesses alleged specifically that appellant fired shot from his pistol on instigation of co-accused -- thus, they deviated from their statements very conveniently -- this puts a dent on credibility and veracity of their testimony. [Para 14
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 304 Pt. II -- death due to firing at marriage celebration -- prosecution witnesses close relatives of deceased -- admitted that they were not present at spot and rushed to hospital directly upon receiving intimation over phone -- many persons were firing at time of marriage celebration -- proved beyond preponderance of probability that when deceased collapsed, appellant along with DW-5, took him to hospital -- this seems a plausible explanation for blood stains on seized shirt and coat of appellant -- no sufficient data to form opinion that bullet killing deceased was fired from pistol seized from appellant -- co-accused was also having a pistol along with other persons who were firing during ceremony -- prosecution failed to seize pistols from co-accused and other persons -- it cannot be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that appellant fired the bullet responsible for death of deceased -- findings recorded by trial Court contrary to ballistic report as well as expert medical opinion are purely based on presumptions -- appellant must be given benefit of doubt. (2016) 10 SCC 220 and (2007) 4 SCC 415 followed. [Paras 14 to 18
(3) Judgment -- Court has to record finding based on certain facts and evidence produced before it, not based on certain presumptions which run contrary to evidence or are uncorroborated by material brought on record. [Para 16
(4) Practice -- Court can form its own opinion contrary to opinion given by expert witness -- however, such reasoning has to be based upon strong evidence which is not capable of being doubted. [Para 17
¼1½ lk{kh && ukrsnkj lk{kh && ukrsnkj lk{khx.k lg&vfHkqä ds laca/k esa i{kæksgh gks x, vkSj dsoy vihykFkhZ ds fo:) vfHkdFku fd, && rFkkfi] nsgkrh ukfy'kh] çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vkSj naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 161 ds v/khu vfHkfyf[kr dFkuksa esa bu lHkh lkf{k;ksa us fofufnZ"Vr% vfHkdFku fd;k fd vihykFkhZ us lg&vfHkqä ds mdlkus ij viuh fiLrkSy ls xksyh nkxh && vr%- og cgqr lqfo/kkiwoZd vius dFkuksa ls fopfyr gks x, && blls muds ifjlk{; dh fo'oluh;rk vkSj lR;rk dks vk?kkr igq¡prk gSA ¼iSjk 14
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 304 Hkkx 2 && fookg lekjksg esa xksyh pyus ls e`R;q && vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k e`rd ds fudV ds ukrsnkj && Lohdkj fd;k fd og LFky ij mifLFkr ugha Fks vkSj nwjHkk"k ij lwpuk çkIr gksus ij lh/ks fpfdRlky; nkSM+ x, && fookg lekjksg ds le; vusd O;fä xksfy;k¡ pyk jgs Fks && vfèklaHkkO;rk dh çcyrk ds ijs lkfcr fd tc e`rd vpsr gqvk rc vihykFkhZ] çlk-5 ds lkFk] mls fpfdRlky; ysdj x;k && ;g vihykFkhZ dh vfHkx`ghr deht vkSj dksV ij jä ds /kCcksa dk laHkkO; Li"Vhdj.k çrhr gksrk gS && ;g jk; xfBr djus ds fy, i;kZIr lkexzh ugha fd e`rd dk o/k djus okyh xksyh vihykFkhZ ls vfHkx`ghr fiLrkSy ls nkxh xbZ Fkh && lg&vfHkqä ds lkFk vU; O;fä;ksa ds ikl Hkh fiLrkSysa Fkh] tks vuq"Bku ds nkSjku xksfy;k¡ pyk jgs Fks && vfHk;kstui{k us lg&vfHkqä vkSj vU; O;fä;ksa ls fiLrkSysa vfHkx`ghr ugha dha && ;qfä;qä lansg ls ijs ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk fd e`rd dh e`R;q ds fy, ftEesnkj xksyh vihykFkhZ us pykbZ Fkh && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk çk{ksfidh çfrosnu ds lkFk gh fo'ks"kK fpfdRlh; jk; ds çfrdwy vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ fo'kq)r% mi/kkj.kkvksa ij vk/kkfjr && vihykFkhZ dks lansg dk Qk;nk fn;k gh tkuk gksxkA ¼2016½10 ,llhlh rFkk 220 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk ¼2007½ 4 ,llhlh 415 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14 ls 18
¼3½ fu.kZ; && U;k;ky; dks mlds le{k is'k fd, x, dfri; rF;ksa vkSj lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djuk gksrs gSa- ,slh dfri; mi/kkj.kkvksa ds vk/kkj ij ugha tks lk{; ds çfrdwy gksa vFkok vfHkys[k ij ykbZ xbZ lkexzh ls vlaiq"V gksaA ¼iSjk 16
¼4½ çFkk && U;k;ky; fo'ks"kK lk{kh }kjk nh xbZ jk; ds çfrdwy Lo;a dh jk; xfBr dj ldrk gS rFkkfi] og rdZ.kk ,sls çcy lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gksuk vko';d gS ftl ij lansg ugha fd;k tk ldsA ¼iSjk 17

ORDER

Dharmadhikari, J. -- 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 407/2020 (State of M.P. v. Dr. Priyasharan Singh Thakur & Anr.) preferred by State as well as Criminal Appeal No. 7762/2019 (Dr. Priyasharan Singh Thakur v. State of M.P.) preferred by accused/ appellant herein as both the appeals arise out of common judgment dated 30.8.2019 passed by III Additional Session Judge, Sagar.

2. The State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred CRA No. 407/2020 under section 377/378 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence and against acquittal of accused Dr. Priyasharan Singh Thakur under section 302 of IPC, whereas accused Dr. Priyasharan Singh Thakur has preferred CRA No. 7762/2019 against his conviction under section 304 Part II of IPC for which he was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and one year rigorous imprisonment as default stipulation in case of non-payment of fine.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 407/2020 was preferred against both the accused persons namely Dr. Priysharan Singh Thakur and Martand Singh, however, vide order dated 27.1.2025, this Court has already dismissed the appeal so far as it relates to co-accused Martand Singh is concerned for the reasons recorded therein and thus, we are considering the appeal preferred by the State only against Dr. Priyasharan Singh Thakur in this judgment.

4. According to the case of the prosecution, Dehati Nalsi was recorded by Shri S.C Shrivastava, Assistant Sub-Inspector Police Station Kotwali, Sagar on 13.2.2013 at 23:00 at the instance of complainant Anil Kumar Dubey to the effect that Anil Kumar Dubey alongwith Surendra Choubey, Brijesh Dubey, Vinod Guru, Dharmendra Choubey and Shyamji Dubey had gone to attend the marriage of Anish Rawat at Hotel Ram Saroj Palace. It is also stated in the Dehati Nalsi that in the marriage, Dr. P.S Thakur (Appellant/accused herein) and Martand Singh Thakur were armed with a pistol/mouser. It is also stated in the Dehati Nalsi that on 13.2.2013 at about 8:30 PM, appellant namely Dr. P.S. Thakur along with co-accused Martand Singh Thakur armed were dancing on the song “Munni Badnam Hui” with pistols in their hands and the deceased and accused persons started quarrelling for a song played in the barat of groom namely Anish Rawat. On the instigation of Martand Singh Thakur, present appellant has shot fire from his licensed pistol at point blank on the chest of Abhishek Dubey. Immediately, he collapsed and then he was taken to the hospital in Tavera vehicle driven by Dharmendra Choubey. However, Abhishek Dubey succumbed to the gunshot injury and declared dead in the hospital. With aforesaid allegations, Dehati Nalsi (Exhibit P-1) was lodged by complainant Anoop Kumar Dubey at about 23:00 hrs. alleging that he along with many other witnesses had seen the incident. Dehati Nalisi culminated into FIR (Exhibit P-17) registered at Crime No. 66/2023 at 23:30 hrs., for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC against both the accused persons.

5. During the course of investigation, police has recorded the statements of seven eye witnesses namely Anoop Dubey (PW-1), Vinod Guru (PW-3), Shyamji Dubey (PW-4), Brijesh Dubey (PW-6) and Anand Dubey (PW-7), Rajesh Rajak (PW-8), Rajeshwar Sen PW-9 along with the statements of other witnesses and also seized licensed pistol from present appellant along with his clothes. On completion of investigation, final report was filed under section 173 of Cr.P.C. before competent Court by prosecution and accordingly, matter was committed to the Court of Session Judge, Sagar in form of S.T. No. 900114/2014. The Appellant was charged for the offence punishable u/s 302 while the coaccused Martand Singh was charged u/s 302 with the aid of section 34 of the I.P.C.

6. The prosecution led evidence by examining as many as 19 witnesses, namely Anoop Dubey - P.W.1, Dharmendra Choubey - P.W.2, Vinod Guru - P.W.3, Shyamji Dubey - P.W.4, Shivakant Sahu - P.W.5, Brijesh Dubey- P.W

Click Here to Read the rest of this document