SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(MP) 560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR 
ANAND PATHAK, HIRDESH, JJ. 
Jagannath – Appellant
Versus 
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent 
Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2014 
Decided On : 19-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Chitra Saxena- learned Counsel
For the Respondent: Shri A. K. Nirankari, learned Public Prosecutor

The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, affirming that witness credibility, including relatives, supports the prosecution when corroborated by medical evidence.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - Appellant convicted for life imprisonment and fine imposed - Evidence from eyewitnesses established guilt of appellant in murder of Chander Singh, corroborated by medical evidence of injuries. (Paras 1, 4, 28, 42)

(B) Witness Credibility - Principles established that testimonies from relatives are not inherently biased and can be reliable, emphasizing the importance of evidence quality over quantity. (Paras 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
On 24-01-2013, Chander Singh was murdered by multiple assailants, including the appellant, with his wife witnessing the act; the appellant allegedly had a motive due to personal enmity over family matters related to the deceased's interactions. (Paras 2, 19)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found sufficient evidence including eyewitness accounts and medical reports to conclusively link the appellant to the crime, rejecting claims of false implication due to community rivalry. (Paras 7, 42)

Issues: The court examined whether the appellant was the actual perpetrator of the murder based on witness testimonies and the integrity of the investigation. (Paras 14, 36)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the combined testimonies of the deceased's relatives and corroborating medical evidence substantiate the appellant's guilt, dismissing defense claims of discrepancies and deficiencies in the prosecution's case. (Paras 42, 43)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Table of Content
1. appellant challenges conviction in murder case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments for false implication and unreliable witness testimony. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. state supports conviction; evidence deemed credible. (Para 12 , 14 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. conviction upheld based on compelling evidence. (Para 35)

JUDGMENT :

Hirdesh, J.

1.The present criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been filed by appellant- Jagannath challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-12-2013 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No.152 of 2013 by which, appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo Six Months' additional Rigorous Imprisonment.

2. As per the case of prosecution, on the date of incident i.e. 24-01-2013 around 11:00 am, Sarjan Singh (PW4), brother of Chander Singh (since deceased) submitted a report with Police Chowki Ukawad, PS Jamner to the effect that around 09:00 am in the morning, he received information on his mobile No.9827753304 from mobile No.8103456390 of Hakim Singh that Chander Singh has been murdered in Kola Ki Bedri and at the time of commission of murder of Chander Singh, his wife Daryav Bai has seen the incident. Accused Mangilal held down Chander Singh. Accused Samandar, Jagannath (present appellant) and Munshi alias Vikram assaulted Chander Singh by means of axe. Total five assailants including one unknown assailant were involved in commission of crime. Ratna Gurjar has also seen the incident. On hearing screams of Ratna Gurjar and DaryavBai (wife of deceased Chander Singh), the villagers came. Accused fled away from spot. On the basis of such information, a Crime No.06 of 2013 vide Ex.P1 was registered for offence punishable under Section 302 /34 of IPC at Police Outpost Ukawad by ASI Uttam Singh (PW-9). Merg No.01 of 2013 under Section 174 of CrPC regarding death of Chander Singh was recorded vide Ex.P14. Investigation was started.

3. ASI Uttam Singh (PW-9) reached the place of incident. On the basis of Safina form (Ex.P2) of the witnesses, Panchnama of the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P3. Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P4. Bloodstained and plain soil in two plastic boxes were collected from the spot. A mobile was seized near the dead body of deceased vide seizure memo Ex.P6. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was sent to Primary Health Centre Madhusudangarh for postmortem, where Dr .Mukesh Sharma (PW-7) conducted postmortem vide postmortem report Ex.P10. On the basis of Ex.P1, actual Crime No.21 of 2013 was registered at PS Jamner vide FIR Ex.P12.

4. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC in which, the witnesses stated that murder of deceased Chander Singh was committed only by accused- Jagannath (present appellant) by assaulting him with axe. The then Investigating Officer- Basant Naik (PW-10) arrested the appellant-accused vide arrest memo Ex.P7. In the presence of witnesses, on the basis of memorandum of appellant, axe hidden inside the house near Ghatti and a mobile phone were seized from the possession of appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P9. Thereafter, the seized axe was sent to Dr.Mukesh Sharma (PW-7) and sought a query as to whether injuries on the body of deceased were caused to said axe. According to query report Ex.P11 of Dr. Mukesh Sharma (PW7), axe could have caused injuries found on the body of deceased. Seized axe and blood-stained & plain soil as well as shirt of the deceased were sent to FSL, Gwalior for chemical examination from where the FSL report was received vide Ex.P16. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed by police before the Court of JMFC, Raghogarh from where case was committed to the Sessions Court, Guna.

5. Charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed. At th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top