IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH &

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3486/2015 Premlal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh ………………………………………………………………………………...

Appearance :

Shri Satish Vishwakarma - learned advocate for the appellant.

Shri Akhilendra Singh - learned Government Advocate for the respondent State.

…………………………………………………………………………………

Heard on - 05.08.2025 Pronounced on –21.08.2025

JUDGMENT

Per . Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant Premlal under section 374 (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgement dated 04.11.2015 passed by Shri Anurag Shrivastava, learned Sessions Judge, Balaghat, District Balaghat (MP), whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2014, upon receiving information from the Village Kotwar, a Marg under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at Police Station Lamta, District Balaghat (M.P.). During the Marg enquiry, Shri Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA J.S. Makram, ASI, recovered the dead body of Smt. Parwati Bai, completed the requisite formalities, and sent the body for postmortem. The postmortem report revealed that the death was not due to falling into a well but was caused by injuries. Consequently, FIR under Crime No. 74/2014 was registered under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. It was alleged that the marriage of the appellant with Smt. Parwati Bai had taken place about four years ago, and after marriage, she resided at her matrimonial home. Out of the wedlock two children were born. The appellant, being addicted to liquor, often subjected his wife to beatings. On 15.08.2014, the appellant informed his elder brother, Udal Singh, that his wife is missing from the house. Despite a search, she could not be traced.

3. During investigation, the police seized a Gamchha ¼xeNk½ and a Rajai ¼jtkbZ½ belonging to the appellant, along with other blood-stained articles, pursuant to his memorandum. Statements of witnesses were recorded, and the seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. Upon completion of investigation, a final report was submitted before the JMFC, Balaghat, alleging that on 15.08.2014, the appellant killed his wife, concealed her body in a Rajai under the bed, and on the next day, threw the same into a well situated near his house.

4. The case, after committal by the JMFC, Balaghat, was sent for trial before the Sessions Judge, Balaghat (M.P.), where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 252/2014. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 120 IPC against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial, taking the defence that the deceased used to prepare and sell liquor, and for that purpose, she had gone to fetch water from the well, where she accidentally fell and died.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced documents marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-20. The appellant, however, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA neither examined any witness nor adduced any documentary evidence in support of his defence before the learned Trial Court.

6. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the material available on record, vide the impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty of the alleged offences and convicted him accordingly. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the deceased had died due to drowning in the well, and the appellant had neither any intention nor motive to kill her. The conviction r