IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK AGARWAL, VINAY SARAF, JJ.
Krishna Kumar Rajak And Others – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1893 of 2020
Decided On : 13-01-2026
(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 24 and 114 -- case based on circumstantial evidence -- no weapon seized from any appellant -- extra-judicial confession not believable -- accused cannot be held guilty of murder only on basis of recovery of stolen mobile phone of deceased from possession of an accused -- even with aid of presumption u/s. 114 of Evidence Act, charge of murder cannot be brought home unless there is some evidence to show that appellant was involved in offence of murder, and theft and murder occurred at the same time, i.e., in the course of same transaction -- no such evidence -- prosecution not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt -- chain of circumstantial evidence not complete -- appellants/accused persons acquitted. (1984) 4 SCC 116, (1952) 2 SCC 641, (2011) 11 SCC 666 and (2022) 13 SCC 705 followed. [Paras 17, 29 & 34 to 36]
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 24 -- extra-judicial confession -- admissibility -- extra-judicial confession must be voluntary -- circumstances in which the confession is made should be probable and natural as well as trustworthy. (1975) 4 SCC 472, (2012) 6 SCC 403, (2024) 4 SCC 735 and (2025) 3 SCC 565 followed. [Para 24]
(3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 24 -- extra-judicial confession -- admissibility -- extra-judicial confession neither made immediately after incident, nor there was any occasion to disclose this fact to anyone -- it was reported to police after inordinate delay of 3 months and 4 days -- cannot be made basis of conviction. [Para 29]
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 24 rFkk 114 & ekeyk ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; ij vk/kkfjr & fdlh Hkh vihykFkhZ ls dksbZ gfFk;kj vfHkx`ghr ugha & U;kf;dsrj laLoh—fr fo'oluh; ugha & vfHk;qäx.k dks ,d vfHk;qä ds dCts ls cjken fd, x, e`rdk ds pqjk, gq, eksckby Qksu ek= ds vk/kkj ij gR;k dk nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 114 ds v/khu mi/kkj.kk dh lgk;rk ls Hkh gR;k dk vkjksi fl) ugha fd;k tk ldrk] tc rd fd ;g n'kkZus ds fy, dqN lk{; ugha gks fd vihykFkhZ gR;k ds vijk/k esa varoZfyr Fkk] rFkk pksjh vkSj gR;k ,d gh le; vFkkZr~ ,d gh laO;ogkj ds vuqØe esa gq, & ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha & vfHk;kstu viuk i{kdFku ;qfä;qä lansg ds ijs lkfcr djus esa vleFkZ & ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; dh J`a[kyk iw.kZ ugha & vihykFkhZx.k@vfHk;qä O;fä nks"keqäA ¼1984½ 4 ,llhlh 116] ¼1952½ 2 ,llhlh 641] ¼2011½ 11 ,llhlh 666 rFkk ¼2022½ 13 ,llhlh 705 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17] 29 ,oa 34 ls 36½
¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 24 & U;kf;dsrj laLoh—fr & xzkg~krk & U;kf;dsrj laLoh—fr LoSfPNd gksuk vko';d gS & ftu ifjfLFkfr;ksa & esa laLoh—fr dh xbZ og laHkkO; vkSj LokHkkfod gksus ds lkFk gh Hkjksls;ksX; gksuk pkfg,A ¼1975½ 4 ,llhlh 472] ¼2012½ 6 ,llhlh 403] ¼2024½ 4 ,llhlh 735 rFkk ¼2025½ 3 ,llhlh 565 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 24½
¼3½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 24 & U;kf;dsrj laLoh—fr & xzkg~krk U;kf;dsrj laLoh—fr u rks ?kVuk ds rqjar i'pkr~ dh xbZ] u ;g rF; fdlh dks crkus dk dksbZ dkj.k gh Fkk & iqfyl dks bldh bfÙkyk 3 ekl vkSj 4 fnu ds vfr'k; foyac ds i'pkr~ nh xbZ & nks"kflf) dk vk/kkj ugha gks ldrhA ¼iSjk 29½
JUDGMENT :
Vinay Saraf, J.
1. The appellants have preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.02.2020 delivered by the Special Judge, Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mandla in Special Case No.18/2017, whereby learned Special Judge has convicted the appellants Krishna Kumar Rajak and Satyendra Varkade under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 201 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and RI for three years respectively and fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation, however, learned Special Judge acquitted co-accused Brajesh @ Ghoi Maravi from all the charges and appellants were also acquitted from the charges leveled under Section 3(2)(5) of the Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 376 (D) of I.P.C.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 21.11.2016, Simbhu Das Bairagi (PW1), Village Kotwar of Village Keriwah informed to the Police Niwas, District Mandla that dead body of a young lady is lying in the forest of Village Keriwah and several parts of the body were eaten by wild animals. Upon his information, Police went at the spot and recovered the dead body of unknown lady on 21.11.2016 on 11:40 am and registered inquest intimation report Ex.P-1 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Upon registration of inquest report, the enquiry started and the police officer prepared spot memo, seized the incrementing articles from the spotand forwarded the body for postmortem. Post mortem report revealed that the deceased was murdered and resultantly Police Niwas, District Mandla registered Crime No.218/2016 under Sections 302, 201 of the IPC against unknown person and started investigation. Upon enquiry the Police came to know that daughter of Basant Soyam (PW-10) of Village Majhgao was missing since 14.11.2016, however, no missing person report was lodged. Basant Soyam (PW10) informed that his daughter was missing however he could not identified the body as his daughter, and for the purpose of identification, the femur bone of right leg of the deceased was sent for DNA examination with the blood samples of the Basant Soyam and his wife. In DNA report, it was confirmed that the body recovered from the forest of Keriwah was of the missing daughter of Basant Soyam. During investigation, Basant Soyam informed to the Investigating Officer that his daughter was using one Galaxy Star Pro Black Mobile of Samsung Company and the same was in her own name. Thereafter, Special Investigating Team was constituted and CDR details of the mobile were obtained and from the examination, it was revealed that one Ram Charan Parte (PW11) was using the said mobile phone. The mobile phone was seized from the possession of Ramcharan Parte, who disclosed that he purchased the mobile phone from one Dilip Marko (PW15).
4. Upon enquiry, Dilip Marko revealed that he purchased the said mobile from Krishna Kumar Rajak (appellant no.1) at Rs.700/- and sold the same to Ramcharan Parte for Rs.2000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid information and examination of CDR, it came on record that after death of deceased, appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak used mobile phone of the deceased. Thereafter, he was interrogated and during interrogation, he accepted that with the help of co-accused Satyendra (appellant no.2) he murdered deceased to whom he loved, but she was in relation with some other boy. Upon his information, the burnt cloths of the deceased were seized by the police and shirt and trouser allegedly used by the appellant, Krishna Kumar Rajak at the time of incident were also seized from his possession.
5. Satyendra Varkade(appellant no.2) produced the photograph of the deceased and her education certificate, which were seized from his possession with a brown colored ladies purse. Another black colour ladies purse was seized from co-accused Brajesh along with the photocopies of the mark sheet and certificate of the High School an
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
The court established that mere suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that extra judicial confession and recovery of evidence are weak pieces of evidence and must inspire confidence. The prosecution must establish a c....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
In circumstantial evidence cases, each link in the evidence chain must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, supported by all proving consistent guilt without alternative explanations.
Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence requiring corroboration and should be credible; reliance on insufficient evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
For a conviction based on extra-judicial confession, corroborative evidence is essential, and any substantial contradictions in testimonies undermine its reliability.
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in murder cases, and rely on corroborative evidence for extra-judicial confessions.
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.