Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rishi Badhaiyan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005
1 CRA-2816-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2816 of 2025
RISHI BADGAIYAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Agrawal, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Government Advocate for State.
Shri Vijay Shukla, Advocate for Objector.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal Heard on I.A.No.6341/2025, which is first application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the aforesaid application.
3. I.A.No.6341/2025 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally heard.
5. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 24.2.2025 passed by learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.27/2023 convicting the appellant for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 2 CRA-2816-2025 offence under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- & Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months respectively with a further direction to run all the jail sentences concurrently and acquitting him from the charge of Section 306 of the I.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated on the basis of the Lash Panchayatnama contrary to the report of the postmortem doctors. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the appellant Rishi Badgaiyan with the deceased Arti Badgaiyan had taken place in the year 2006. The appellant is an Ex- serviceman since 2016 after his retirement from Armed Forces. He was working as Security Guard at Singrauli Mines. It is alleged that the appellant is a man of lose temper, therefore, he used to abuse his wife and used to frequently beat her. He was a regular consumer of alcohol. On 28.9.2022 at about 11:30 PM, a report was lodged that the appellant had throttled his wife at Forest Colony and with a view to suppress the homicidal death, he resorted to hanging her so to suppress the evidence. In the alternative, the charge against the appellant was framed to the effect that he had abetted suicide of his wife.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the postmortem doctor, namely, Dr.Bharti Singh (PW.13) categorically states in her cross- examination that the cause of death was suicidal and there was no injury Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 3 CRA-2816-2025 mark except for the ligature mark found on the body of the deceased.. When the aforesaid evidence is taken into consideration alongwith the admission of the star prosecution witness Ankita Badgaiyan (PW.3), who admits in Paragraph No.12 of her cross-examination that she had not given statement to the police as contained in Exhibit D/1 that her father was strangulating her mother with a "Dupatta" and she had asked her father not to strangulate her mother but she is giving such statement for the first time before the Court then it is evident that the children of the deceased were tutored by her "Nana- Nani". The interested child witnesses are tutored witnesses as is evident from the evidence, which has come on record, therefore, their statements cannot be taken into consideration to record finding of conviction against the appellant.
8. Learned Government Advocate for the State in his turn submits that in Naksha Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/2), it is mentioned that "in the opinion of we Panch, the deceased Arti Badgaiyan, W/o Rishi Badgaiyan, Aged about 33 years, R/o.Village Vijaydham died because of beating and hanging but to know the correct reason of death, postmortem is advised. The postmortem is necessary. The postmortem be carried out". Thus, it is submitted that in Naksha Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/2) itself, it is mentioned that the deceased was beaten and then hanged and when this aspect of evidence is taken into consideration as has been dealt with by learned Trial Court then there is no iota of doubt that the conviction recorded by learned Trial Court deserves to be maintained.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 4 CRA-2816-2025 record.
10. The postmortem report proved by Dr.Bharti Singh (PW.13) is available on record as Exhibit P/27. The aforesaid report was carried out by a team of two doctors, namely, Dr.Pankaj Agrawal and Dr.Bharti Singh. In the aforesaid postmortem report, it is mentioned that "in ours' opinion, the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. The nature of death is suicidal. Duration of death is within 10-12 hours". The postmortem was carried out by a team of doctors on 29.9.2022 at 9:36 AM.
11. Dinesh Tripathi (PW.1) states that the appellant is his son-in-law and the deceased is his daughter. He had two daughters out of which the deceased was elder. He had performed marriage of his elder daughter in the year 2006 as per Hindu customs and traditions. She was residing at Forest Colony for last seven years. The allegation is that after marriage, the appellant used to abuse and beat the deceased. He was consuming excessive liquor and used to beat her every day. The deceased has three kids, namely, Akriti, Akshay and Ankita and they are 14, 12 & 8 years of age respectively. On getting information from his daughter, he had counselled the appellant on several occasions.
12. Dinesh Tripathi (PW.1) in his cross-examination states that the appellant retired from Army in the year 2016-2017 and then joined the work of a Gunman at Singrauli Mines. He was getting pension of Rs.34,000/- per month and the salary of Rs.35,000/- from his engagement as a Security Guard. It is evident that the appellant was keeping the deceased's daughter alongwith him wherever he was posted. Dinesh Tripathi (PW.1) after Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 5 CRA-2816-2025 admitting that his son-in-law was keeping his daughter Arti Badgaiyan alongwith him on all his postings and used to devote time to the family, admits that for last 17-18 years, no report was lodged. Dinesh Tripathi (PW.1) admits that when the deceased died, at that time, he was at Mumbai and after two days, he had returned to his house and he was tutored as to what statements are to be given to the police as is admitted in Paragraph No.13 of his cross-examination.
13. Dinesh Tripathi (PW.1) in Paragraph No.14 of his cross-examination admits that after the death of his daughter, no report was being lodged, therefore, they had encircled the police station and thereafter report was lodged. He further admits in Paragraph No.14 of his cross-examination that as per doctors' report, his daughter died because of suicide. This witness in Paragraph No.16 of his cross-examination admits that the accused was having attachment towards his family, therefore, he used to frequently visit Barhi where he was residing while he was working at Singrauli. He admits that he got the names of children deleted from the previous schools and have kept them with him after recording their names at a village school. In Paragraph No.19, this witness admits that neighbourers of the locality where the deceased was residing had informed him that since they had not seen anything, they will not give any statement. He also admits that he had given his statement only once and had signed that statement. If the police had used unsigned statement then he cannot give any reason for the same.
14. Girja Tripathi (PW.2) is mother-in-law of the appellant. She was given intimation about the incident by her grand daughter Akriti Badgaiyan. In Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 6 CRA-2816-2025 cross-examination, she admits that her husband Dinesh Tripathi is residing at Borivali, Mumbai and is carrying out the profession of Panditai. She admits that during service tenure, his daughter was residing with her husband i.e.the accused. She also admits that all three kids were studying in good schools. They had constructed a house at Barhi. She admits that no report was lodged in past against the accused then on her own she states that Arti Badgaiyan used to refuse lodging of any report against the appellant. She admits that it is hearsay evidence that her son-in-law was consuming alcohol. She admits that her son-in-law used to visit her house too. She admits that from the date of the incident, Arti's kids are with her. In Paragraph No.11, this witness admits that the accused had taken the deceased on his motorcycle for treatment to the hospital. Her eldest grand daughter had accompanied him. While giving her case diary statement (Exhibit D/1), she did not state that the accused had beaten Arti on several occasions. She admits that for the first time, she is stating before the Court about the incident of beating. She admits that she had not seen the incident and she is stating what others have informed her.
15. Girja Tripathi (PW.2) in Paragraph No.13 of her cross-examination admits that she had taken kids of the deceased in her favour and they are under her guardianship. She says contrary to the statement of Dinesh Tripathi (PW.1) that the kids are not studying anywhere. Both the witnesses i.e. Dinesh Tripathi (PW.1) and Girja Tripathi (PW.2) depose that they have no idea that the deceased was insisting to stay with the accused at Singrauli. Girja Tripathi (PW.2) also admits that they had encircled the police station as Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 7 CRA-2816-2025 the police was not lodging their report. She admits that they have filed a case for maintenance against the accused because he had given his complete property and ATM card to his father. She admits that they are having enmity with the accused after the incident.
16. Ankita Badgaiyan (PW.3) is daughter of the accused and the deceased. This witness in Paragraph No.10 of her cross-examination admits that she was visiting her Nana during her school vacations alongwith her parents and other siblings. Her father was working at Singrauli. There are persons residing in neighbourhood in the locality of the Forest Colony at Barhi. They are known to her. They have good relations with the neighbourers. The accused was attending Parent Teacher Meeting. There was lot of emphasis of the accused on the education of the children.
17. Ankita Badgaiyan (PW.3) in Paragraph No.12 of her cross-examination admits that she had given statement to the police in presence of her Nana, Nani and other police personnel. She had not informed the police while giving her case diary statement (Exhibit D/1) that her father had forcefully made her mother to consume alcohol and had climbed on her chest. She had not informed the police that her father had strangulated her mother with a "Dupatta". She had not informed the police that her sister Akriti had tried to hear the heartbeat of her mother but it was not functional. This witness deposes that all these things are being stated by her for the first time in the Court.
18. Ankita Badgaiyan (PW.3) of her cross-examination admits that there are four CCTV cameras installed at her house and they were functional but in Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 8 CRA-2816-2025 those CCTV cameras, no photographs were available. She admits that during her free time, the accused used to visit his house at Barhi. He used to feel good to stay at Barhi. They used to roam around together and the accused used to take his family to the temple. She also admits that since her father was having enmity with one of the neighbourers, therefore, CCTV cameras were installed.
19. Ankita Badgaiyan (PW.3) in Paragraph No.18 of her cross-examination admits that the moment accused saw her mother hanging, he had immediately woken up the kids. She admits that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C as well as her case diary statement (Exhibit D/2), she did not state that her father had hanged her mother and this is being stated by her for the first time. She admits that she was woken up by her father and not by her sister. In Paragraph No.19 of her cross-examination, this witness admits that since she was sleeping, she cannot say as to how her mother got hanged. Her mother was of a good physical dimension and a healthy lady. She admits that she had not seen that how her mother had reached to the hanging noose. She admits that the postmortem doctors have mentioned that the death of her mother was suicidal.
20. Akriti Badgaiyan (PW.4) in Paragraph No.10 of her cross-examination admits that whatever is known to her is known to her brother Akshay and her sister Ankita and then on her own she states that the proceedings of hospital are not known to Ankita and Akshay. She states that she is student of Class- XI. She admits that there are four CCTV cameras installed at the house and they were functional at the time of the incident and then she states that their Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 9 CRA-2816-2025 material has been deleted. She admits that the police had taken CCTV footage. She admits that there was nothing in the CCTV footage.
21. Akriti Badgaiyan (PW.4) in Paragraph No.15 of her cross-examination admits that her father was frequently visiting Barhi from Singrauli. He was not settled at Singrauli and used to frequently visit Barhi as he used to feel contended at Barhi. Her father used to take the kids for pleasure trips including temple. At hospital reception, her father stated that the mother had committed suicide and on her own she states that she was telling a lie.
22. Akriti Badgaiyan (PW.4) in Paragraph No.18 of her cross-examination admits that after half an hour of altercation, she had gone to sleep. Her younger brother and sister were also sleeping with her. Her father had woken them up at about 11-12 in the night saying that their mother had hanged herself. She admits that she had seen her father bringing out her mother. She also admit that when her father had opened the noose then because of weight, her mother had fallen down. She admits that when her father could not lift her mother then he had dragged her upto the gate and then taken her to the hospital on his motorcycle.
23. Akriti Badgaiyan (PW.4) in Paragraph No.21 of her cross-examination states that since she was sleeping, she cannot say as to her mother was in the room of her father or not. When this witness was given a suggestion that since they were sleeping, they cannot say as to who hanged their mother but this witness replies that it was her father, however, she admits that she alongwith her Nani, Mama and other relatives were at police station. She states that her father was at hospital and not at police station. The doctors had Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 10 CRA-2816-2025 prepared a postmortem report with regard to which intimation was given to their family members.
24. Ramakant Upadhyay (PW.5) in his testimony deposes that the appellant was arrested from the hospital at Barhi. He was not arrested at the police station or from his residence but there is no mention on the Arrest Memo (Exhibit P/8) that he was arrested at Government Hospital, Barhi. This witness admits that he cannot say as to whether any opinion was taken from him while preparing the Naksha Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/2). He also admits that at the time of his statement and preparation of the Naksha Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/2), he stated that the deceased had hanged herself and if it is not mentioned then he cannot give any reason for the same.
25. Akshay Badgaiyan (PW.6) is son of the deceased. He too admits that his father had taken his mother to the hospital. On 29.9.2022, they were in hospital till 8:00 AM and they were taken by their relatives to Village Nadavan where her maternal grand father and maternal grand mother are residing. The police had not interrogated them. This witness denies that he had seen his mother hanging but states that it was seen by his sister. He admits tht his Nana Nani were not having good relations with his father.
26. Balram Singh Chaturvedi (PW.7) has turned hostile. He states that Rishi Badgaiyan is his neighbourer and they were having cordial relations. He denies that Rishi Badgaiyan had beaten Arti Badgaiyan and hanged her.
27. Nandkishore Tiwari (PW.8) is another neighbourer of the accused. He pleads ignorance about the affairs of Rishi Badgaiyan. He specifically denies that Rishi Badgaiyan was beating his wife Arti Badgaiyan under the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 11 CRA-2816-2025 influence of alcohol.
28. Aditya Tripathi (PW.9) states that the police had never interrogated Rishi Badgaiyan in front of him. The police had seized a black colour Dupatta and hard disk and other computer material in front of him. He had signed on Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/4) and the Arrest Memo (Exhibit P/8). The hard disk was checked for which Panchnama (Exhibit P/9) was prepared and after checking the hard disk, it was sealed vide Panchnama (Exhibit P/10). This witness in Paragraph No.7 of his testimony deposes that the CCTV cameras were not installed inside the room but they were installed outside the house with regard to which a Panchnama was prepared. This witness states that he cannot say as to what was written on those Panchnamas.
29. Satish Haldkar (PW.10) states that he had prepared the notice (Exhibit P/1) and the Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/2). He admits that C to C part on Exhibit P/2 i.e the Naksha Panchayatnama is not written by him wherein it is mentioned that Arti Badgaiyan was beaten and there were injury marks on her body. There is no re-examination of Satish Haldkar (PW.10) that infact he had written C to C part on Exhibit P/2 and he had seen injuries on the body of the deceased.
30. Dr.Bharti Singh (PW.13) states that there were no injury marks except for the ligature marks on the body of the deceased and the death was suicidal.
31. When all these facts are taken into consideration then it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove any injury on the body of the deceased to Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 12 CRA-2816-2025 substantiate that she was beaten and then hanged. All the three kids are not eye-witnesses to the incident inasmuch as they admit that they had gone to sleep when the incident is said to have taken place. There is an admission that when the police was refusing to lodge a report then they had encircled the police station. The kids were in custody of their Nana Nani from the date of the incident. They appear to have been tutored witnesses. There are also several contradiction as discussed above. The medical opinion as given by Dr.Bharti Singh (PW.13) could not be contradicted.
32. Investigating Officer R.L.Choudhary (PW.12) admits that the FIR (Exhibit P/20) and the Merg Intimation (Exhibit P/18) were investigated by him. He admits that the accused had informed him that he and his kids had gone to sleep alongwith his wife at about 10:00 PM. When he got up at 11:30 PM, he did not find his wife in the room. He checked her wife in children's room and thereafter when he saw her in Parchhi, she was hanging. He admits that he had registered the FIR (Exhibit P/20) on 30.9.2022 without waiting for the postmortem report (Exhibit P/27). He admits that he had registered the FIR (Exhibit P/20) on the basis of the statements. He also admits that he had seen the postmortem report in which the cause of death is mentioned as suicidal. He admits that he had not interrogated the matter from this angle. He admits that none of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Dinesh Tripathi (PW.1) and Girja Tripathi (PW.2), Ankita Badgaiyan (PW.3), Akriti Badgaiyan (PW.4) and Akshay Badgaiyan (PW.6) in their merg statement state about the nylon rope or that the deceased was hanging with a nylon rope. All of them had talked of Stole/Dupatta.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 13 CRA-2816-2025
33. When all these facts are taken into consideration then it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any beating by the appellant. There were no injury marks on the body of the deceased. The postmortem doctor was not declared hostile. Dr.Bharti Singh (PW.13) was not reexamined either. There is an admission by the prosecution witnesses especially Dinesh Tripathi (PW.1) and Girja Tripathi (PW.2), Ankita Badgaiyan (PW.3), Akriti Badgaiyan (PW.4) and Akshay Badgaiyan (PW.6) that the police had refused to lodge report and they had encircled the police station.
34. There is no challenge to the finding in the postmortem report (Exhibit P/27) that the death of the deceased Arti Badgaiyan was suicidal. Satish Haldkar (PW.10) admits that he had not written that there were signs of Maarpeet on the body of the deceased as is mentioned in the Naksha Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/2) from C to C part, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove either the aspect of beating Arti Badgaiyan or that her death was caused due to throttling and then her dead body was hanged.
35. In view of the aforesaid, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 201 of the I.P.C is not justified. The impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant has been passed by learned Trial Court on the basis of tutored evidence of Ankita Badgaiyan (PW.3), Akriti Badgaiyan (PW.4) and Akshay Badgaiyan (PW.6), which is contrary to the record. Such conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures cannot be allowed to be sustained in the eyes of law as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 17-10-2025 20:24:22NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53005 14 CRA-2816-2025
36. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
37. The impugned judgment dated 24.2.2025 passed by learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.27/2023 convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby set aside.
38. The appellant Rishi Badgaiyan is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
39. The case property be disposed of as per the directions of the learned Trial Court.
40. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 17-10-2025
20:24:22