The necessity of incontrovertible circumstantial evidence for conviction and the court's emphasis on the prosecution's burden of proof.

Ms. Shweta Yadav – Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State Shri J U D G M E N T Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.

This appeal is filed by appellant Devlal Dhurve being aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baihar, District Balaghat, in S.T.No.120/2018 (State of M.P. through Police Station, Malajkhand, District – Balaghat, State of M.P. Vs. Devlal Dhurve and others), while acquitting the co-accused (Ranjan Parte) from the charges under Section 201 of IPC and learned trial Court has convicted the appellant Devlal Dhurve for offence under Sections

302, 201 of IPC and sentenced him as under:-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR

2. The prosecution story, in brief is that Premlal of Village Nayatola Bhurrak on 12.11.2016 left his house for going to Baiher but did not return back after 2 -3 days, thereafter his family members began to search for him. On 03.12.2016 in a Jangal near Village Keenia, a human skeleton was found and looking at the underwear, baniyain, pant, shirt, slipper and teeth of skeleton lying near the skeleton, Boharan Singh identified it as Premlal. Information of the same was given to the Police Station Pathari where ‘zero merg’ (Ex.P/1) was registered. Skeleton was examined in Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal, from where report was obtained that head of the deceased was broken due to assault, thereafter a FIR (Ex.P/15) bearing Crime No.189/2016 was registered against an unknown person at Police Station Malajkhand. Thereafter to ensure that the skeleton was that of the son of Boharan Singh, blood sample of mother (Kali Bai) and Brother (Budh Singh) of deceased (Premlal) were taken and sent for matching the DNA with the skeleton and from the DNA report, it was confirmed that skeleton is of deceased- Premlal.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR

3. During investigation, a family member of the deceased had suspicion that the accused persons had murdered the deceased Premlal. Therefore, on 28.04.2018, appellant Devlal Dhurve was taken into custody and was interrogated. He made a disclosure statement, on the basis of which a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and, on the basis of the memorandum, mobile phone of the deceased (Premlal) as well as a wooden ‘Danda’ were recovered. Seizure memo is exhibit P/12. FSL report regarding the seized article was obtained. The FSL report is Ex.P/30, which shows that the stones and items received near the skeleton contained human blood.

4. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. When charged under Section 302 and 201 of IPC, the accused denied the charges. After prosecution evidence, when confronted with the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied the prosecution evidence and submitted that he is innocent but did not produced any defence evidence.

5. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence, appeal has been filed on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was appellant Devlal Dhurve who murdered the deceased Premlal. Prosecution evidence is full of contradictions and omissions. It is not proved that the mobile recovered from the appellant is that of the deceased. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant seeks acquittal of the accused/appellant.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Sweta Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State submits that judgment of the trial court is Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR well-founded and appellant should not be acquitted.

7. We have perused t