IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1334 of 2016 BABULAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Abhay Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Arvind Kumar Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondent.

JUDGMENT Per: Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani With the consent of parties, heard finally.

This appeal is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 15.03.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Raisen in Sessions Trial No.180/2015 whereby learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 03 months.

2. The prosecution case, succinctly stated, is that on 09.07.2015 at about 2:00 p.m., Dinesh Ahirwar (PW-2), nephew of the deceased Pannalal, while returning from his workplace on motorcycle during rainfall, reached Badiya Stand, Chiklod Road. There he noticed the dead body of Pannalal lying on the road with his neck chopped by a sharp-edged weapon. Dinesh Ahirwar (PW-2) immediately informed Police Station Kotwali, Raisen. Inspector S.N. Mukati (PW-15) reached the spot and recorded Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/2) at the instance of PW-2. An inquest report (Ex.P/3) was also prepared. It was disclosed in the merg intimation that about one and a half months prior to the incident, the wife of accused Babulal had left the house. The accused suspected that the deceased Pannalal had eloped with his wife. About eight days prior to the incident, the accused had allegedly threatened to kill Pannalal with an axe. On the date of occurrence at about 01:00 p.m., the accused assaulted Pannalal with an axe at Chiklod Road, Badiya Stand, resulting in his death.

3. During investigation, Police arrested appellant/accused and filed charge sheet before the Court of CJM, Raisen and after committal, case was committed to the Sessions Court.

4. Charge was framed against the appellant/accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was read over and explained to the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, namely Chainsingh Gour (PW-1), Dinesh Ahirwar (PW- 2), Abhishek Gour (PW-3), Rajkumar Gour (PW-4), Nitesh Gour (PW-5), Vimla Bai (PW-6), Shanker Lal (PW-7), Shailendra (PW-8), Banti Gour (PW-9), Deepak Soni (PW-10), Kanchedilal (PW-11), B. L. Mishra (PW- 12), Dr. Ankur Chari (PW-13), Naresh Jaget (PW-14) and N. N. Mukati (PW-15) and placed the documents Ex.P-1 to P-26. In defence, the appellant/accused did not choose to examine any witness.

6. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshaling the evidence vide impugned judgment has acquitted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and passed the order of sentence as mentioned above. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended that the entire prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence and that the alleged chain of circumstances is neither complete nor conclusively established. It was submitted that in cases founded on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is under a strict obligation to prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and to demonstrate that all such circumstances form an unbroken chain pointing exclusively towards the guilt of the accused. However, in the present case, the prosecution has allegedly failed to discharge this burden, as the circumstances relied upon are disjointed, inconclusive, and incapable of ruling out every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the appellant.It was further argued that there is a complete absence of any independent and reliable witness to substantiate the prosecution version. The conviction, according to the learned