Babburaja Singh Gurjar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Ocular testimony of related witnesses - Conviction based on the testimony of relatives is sustainable if the evidence is credible and trustworthy; minor discrepancies are trivial and do not invalidate testimony, especially when examined after a significant time lapse. (Para 13)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134 - Plurality of witnesses - The legal system emphasizes the value, weight, and quality of evidence over quantity or multiplicity; conviction can be recorded based on a solitary or few reliable witnesses. Non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution's case where clinching evidence of eyewitnesses exists. (Paras 14, 15)

(C) Motive and Mens Rea - In cases based on direct and trustworthy evidence, the absence of proven motive or intention is of no consequence and does not warrant the discarding of ocular testimony. (Para 16)

(D) Recovery of Material Objects - Where the evidence of the Investigating Officer regarding the recovery of the weapon is convincing and corroborated by forensic reports, the recovery does not need to be rejected simply because seizure witnesses turned hostile. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering an individual by firing two gunshots, hitting the chest and elbow, after taking the victim on a motorcycle. The incident was witnessed by relatives of the deceased. Following the incident, the police recovered a firearm, live cartridges, and the motorcycle based on the appellant's memorandum statement. Forensic examination confirmed the recovered weapon was used in the crime. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the death was homicidal, as the firearm injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses, despite being relatives, were found to be reliable and coherent regarding the identity of the accused. The recovery of the weapon and the forensic evidence provided strong corroboration to the ocular testimony.

Issues: (i) Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or not; (ii) Whether the appellant committed the murder.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the quality of evidence prevails over the quantity of witnesses. Direct and reliable ocular evidence outweighs the absence of a proven motive. Furthermore, the testimony of the Investigating Officer regarding recovery, when supported by forensic reports, is sufficient for conviction even if independent seizure witnesses turn hostile.

Result: Criminal appeal rejected; conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC affirmed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC against conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC for fatal gunshot injuries. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Appellant challenges conviction for lack of reliable eyewitnesses, absence of mens rea, interested and hostile witnesses; State supports conviction. (Para 5 , 6 )

3. Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed; appeal dismissed; trial record and property-disposal order affirmed. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )

4. How is a death established as homicidal when firearm injuries are found?

Firearm entry and exit wounds sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, with no evidence of self-infliction or accident, establish homicidal death; medical opinion confirming firearms as cause supports the finding. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )

5. Can conviction be based on the testimony of close relatives of the deceased?

Yes; the testimony of relatives is not legally barred and may be relied upon if credible and trustworthy, and minor discrepancies due to passage of time and emotional involvement do not discredit the eyewitness account. (Para 12 , 13 )

6. Is non-examination of other or independent witnesses fatal to the prosecution case?

No; Indian law does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Conviction can rest on reliable eyewitness evidence, and non-examination of independent or other witnesses is not fatal when the evidence is clinching. (Para 14 , 15 )

7. Does absence of motive or mens rea weaken a prosecution based on direct evidence?

No; absence of motive pales into insignificance when direct, trustworthy eyewitness evidence establishes the crime; direct evidence cannot be discarded simply because motive is not proved. (Para 16 )

8. Can recovery evidence be relied on when seizure witnesses turn hostile?

Yes; convincing evidence of the investigating officer, corroborated by memos and forensic report, is sufficient; recovery need not be rejected merely because seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )

JUDGEMENT :

Anil Verma, J.

1. Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "CrPC") being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri (M.P), in Sessions Trial No.100280/2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with usual default stipulations.

2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, on 14.04.2013 in village Umari PS Bhounti at the house of one Raghuraj Singh Parmar, the ceremony of Teeka and Lagun was organized and complainant Arjun Singh Parmar and other persons were present there. At about 06.30 PM, appellant/accused Babburaja came there and took Ranveer Singh alias Naatiraja on his bike towards his village. Complainant Arjun Singh have some doubt over accused, therefore, he along with his brother-in-law Govind Singh started following him and when they reached near Mota-Kanchanpur village, they saw that appellant Babburaja Singh Gurjar parked his motorcycle and fired twice upon Ranveer Singh alias Naatiraja, due to which, he fell down and the appellant fled away from the spot. Complainant Arjun Singh Parmar and Govind Singh went near injured and found that one bullet hit on the chest and one bullet hit on the left elbow of injured Ranveer Singh. Injured became unconscious. Thereafter, complainant and Govind Singh got him admitted in Government Hospital, Shivpuri, where, he was declared dead by the Doctors. On the basis of the aforesaid, Crime No.153 of 2013 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302, 34 of IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act at PS Pichhore District Shivpuri.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that, Dr. Anoop Singh (PW13) and Dr.M.L.Agarwal have conducted Postmortem of the deceased and as per their report, cause of death of deceased was the shock due to excessive bleeding caused by gunshot and the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. Investigating Officer, Inspector Janved Singh reached on the spot and prepared spot map and recovered one Kathri, one pair of slippers and two empty cartridges of 12 bore gun and bloodstained and simple soil. The appellant was arrested vide arresting memo. The memorandum statement of the appellant/accused has been recorded and on the basis of the memorandum of accused, Investigating Officer recovered a Katta of 12 bore and live cartridges and Motorcycle as per Seizure Memo Ex.P/18 and P/19. Seized articles were sent for the chemical examination to the Forensic Laboratory.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the JMFC, Pichhore, who has committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Shivpuri and later on, the case has been transferred to Court of ASJ, Pichhore for trial. The trial Court on the basis of the allegations, framed charge under section 302 of IPC against the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 26 witnesses but the defence did not examine any witness. The trial court after appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein above. Hence, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the judgement of trial Court is against the law and facts on record. It is neither legal nor proper nor correct. The trial court was wrong in not considering the material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Arjun Singh (PW1), Arvind Mishra (PW2) and Govind Singh (PW11) are not eye witnesses in the case and they had not seen the incident. The appellant and deceased were good friends and the trial Court has ignored the absence of mens-rea. Arjun Singh (PW

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 701

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G. S. AHLUWALIA, ANIL VERMA, JJ.
Babburaja Singh Gurjar - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 6341 of 2021
Decided On : 07-01-2026

Conviction for murder is sustainable based on credible ocular testimony of related witnesses and forensic evidence of weapon recovery, regardless of the absence of proven motive or the hostility of independent seizure witnesses, as the quality of evidence prevails over quantity.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. How is a death established as homicidal when firearm injuries are found?

5. Can conviction be based on the testimony of close relatives of the deceased?

6. Is non-examination of other or independent witnesses fatal to the prosecution case?

7. Does absence of motive or mens rea weaken a prosecution based on direct evidence?

8. Can recovery evidence be relied on when seizure witnesses turn hostile?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 701

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIORG. S. AHLUWALIA, ANIL VERMA, JJ.Babburaja Singh Gurjar - AppellantVersus The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 6341 of 2021Decided On : 07-01-2026

Conviction for murder is sustainable based on credible ocular testimony of related witnesses and forensic evidence of weapon recovery, regardless of the absence of proven motive or the hostility of independent seizure witnesses, as the quality of evidence prevails over quantity.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. How is a death established as homicidal when firearm injuries are found?

5. Can conviction be based on the testimony of close relatives of the deceased?

6. Is non-examination of other or independent witnesses fatal to the prosecution case?

7. Does absence of motive or mens rea weaken a prosecution based on direct evidence?

8. Can recovery evidence be relied on when seizure witnesses turn hostile?

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G. S. AHLUWALIA, ANIL VERMA, JJ.
Babburaja Singh Gurjar - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 6341 of 2021
Decided On : 07-01-2026