Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5953
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK RUSIA, GAJENDRA SINGH, JJ
RAJUBAI AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 431 of 2002
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Ashish Gupta
For the Respondents: Shri Bhuwan Gautam
Circumstantial evidence must create an unbroken chain of guilt for conviction, where mere presence may not suffice without corroborative links.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 302 read with 34 - Conviction challenged - Appeal against conviction for murder and corresponding penalties handed down by trial court - Comprehensive review of circumstantial evidence, motive, last seen theory, and forensic evidence leads to the conclusion that the conviction was sound - Appellant Rajubai acquitted due to insufficient evidence - Appellant Prakash @ Pappu's conviction upheld based on strong circumstantial evidence. (Paras 1-24)
(B) Circumstantial evidence - Necessity for the chain of circumstances to be complete - Mere presence near the victim insufficient for conviction; however, a combination of strong circumstantial links can establish guilt. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The death of Amarlal allegedly resulted from a conspiracy between the appellants stemming from a personal dispute regarding marriage arrangements, culminating in a direct threat prior to the murder. Following his demise, strong forensic evidence linked Prakash to the crime, while Rajubai lacked sufficient nexus.
Findings of Court:
The trial court established the relationship between the accused and the victim alongside corroborative testimonies and forensic findings that implicated Prakash definitively, while insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of Rajubai.
Issues: Evaluation of circumstantial evidence and last seen theory were critical to determining the guilt of Prakash.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence against Prakash, asserting that the combined force of motive, opportunity, and retrieval of incriminating materials collectively established the criminal liability required for conviction.
Result: The appeal filed by Rajubai succeeded leading to her acquittal, whereas the appeal of Prakash was dismissed, affirming his conviction and sentence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the conviction in a murder case. (Para 2) |
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 431 of 2002 RAJUBAI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Gupta - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam -G.A for the respondent/State.
Reserved on 05.05.2025 Delivered on 29.08.2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T Per: Justice Gajendra Singh This criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is preferred challenging the conviction under section 302 alternatively 302 read with section 34 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of 2years additional simple imprisonment vide judgment dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR
16.03.2002 in Sessions Case No.51/2002 by IInd A.S.J, Ujjain.
2. Facts in brief are that appellant No.1 Rajubai was familiar to deceased Amarlal and deceased Amarlal was intending to settle the marriage of Rajubai through customary mode of Natra or to receive money in lieu of Rajubai. In between appellant no.1 Rajubai married to appellant no.2 Prakash @ Pappu. Due to the marriage of Amarlal with Rajubai appellant Prakash @ Pappu raised an objection regarding the Natra ceremny of Rajubai by Amarlal and on 03.11.2001 Prakash @ Pappu reached the house of Amarlal in the morning time and threatened for dire consequences, if Amarlal tried to the Natra of Rajubai. In the night of 03.11.2001 both the appellants/accused were seen with Amarlal at Udayan Marg, Ujjain. At that time Amarlal was intoxicated. In the morning of 04.11.2001 the body of Amarlal was found in the graveyard where dead bodies of children are buried. The body of Amarlal was seen for the first time by a sweeper Munnalal (PW/7) and intimated the Police vide Ex.P/7. Thereafter a crime no.666/2001 was registered at PS Madhav Nagar, Ujjain. The investigating agency came into motion and necessary formalities were completed and autopsy was completed. The statements were recorded and the appellants were taken into custody on 05.11.2001. The memorandum of information of Rajubai was recorded as Ex.P/8 and a plain dhoti with white Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR border and a petticoat was recovered vide Ex.P/9. The memorandum of information of Prakash @ Pappu was recorded as Ex.P/10 and a weapon santoor, jeans pant, lining shirt were recovered vide Ex.P/11 on 05.11.2001. All the properties were forwarded to FSL, Sagar for forensic examination vide Ex.P/12. After completing investigation, a final report was submitted to the Court of CJM, Ujjain where criminal case no.3866/2001 was registered and vide order dated 14.01.2022 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. During trial the report of forensic science laboratory was submitted to the Court of Sessions on 14.03.2002 and copy of that report was provided to the defence on 15.03.2002 and further examination of appellants under section 313 of the Cr.P.C was conducted regarding FSL report.
4. Appellants abjured the guilt and claimed for trial regarding the charges under section 302, 302 read with section 34 of the IPC.
5. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including Prahlad, son of the deceased Amarlal as PW/1, Rajesh as PW/2, Ajaykumar as PW/3, Premnarayan as PW/4, Assistant Surgeon, district hospital Dr.R.S Dangarh as PW/5, Bherulal as PW/6, Munnalal as PW/7, Inspector Y.P. Singh as PW/8 Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR and Head Constable Rakesh Narayan as PW/9.
6. In examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C all the facts and circumstances appeared against them were either denied or ignorance was expressed. They adduced no defence.
7. Appreciating evidence, trial court found proved that (i) appellants have a motive to eliminate Amarlal on 0311.2001. (ii) The appellants went to the house of Amarlal and threatened through Prahlad (PW/1) in the morning of 03.11.2001. (iii) In th
