Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22230
1 MCRC-29206-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29206 of 2025
RAJESH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Harish Sharma - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Session Trial No.45 of 2018 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 347 of BNSS (corresponding Section 310 of CrPC) has been dismissed.
Short facts of the case are that the complainant, Mahendra Singh @ Tillu Yadav, son of Rajendra Singh Yadav, lodged an oral report at the Trauma Centre, District Hospital, Bhind. It was alleged that his father, Rajendra Singh, was serving as a Constable (Havaldar) in the Home Guard and at the relevant time was posted on duty at the bungalow of the District Judge. The complainant stated that opposite to their residence lived Jitendra @ Bhim Yadav, with whom relations were strained, as he bore enmity Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/17/2025 11:41:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22230 2 MCRC-29206-2025 towards the complainant's family for not acting in accordance with his wishes. On 12.02.2017 at about 8:30 PM, Rajendra Singh was returning home from his fields and was scheduled to leave for duty at 9:00 PM. When he reached near Pachmeda Temple, he was surrounded by Jitendra @ Bhim Yadav and his associates, namely, Jitendra @ Bhim Yadav (Mauser gun), Devendra (Mauser gun), Shailendra @ Shailu (Revolver), Suresh (12-bore gun), Harendra (Mauser gun), Rajesh Yadav - present applicant (Country- made pistol), Billi Yadav (Country-made pistol), Ashish (carrying Mauser gun of his brother Rajit), Sanjeev Yadav (Pump-action gun).
All accused came in a four-wheeler vehicle, hurled abuses at Rajendra Singh, and Jitendra @ Bhim Yadav fired a shot at him, which struck above the left waist and exited through the right buttock. Rajendra Singh fell to the ground grievously injured. At that time, Ranveer Singh Yadav, Ajay @ Challu Yadav, Shivkumar Yadav, and Armat Yadav reached the spot. When they, along with the complainant, tried to rescue Rajendra Singh, the accused threatened them with dire consequences. Thereafter, the accused fled from the place of occurrence.
Rajendra Singh was taken to the hospital in critical condition, where the doctor declared him dead. On the basis of the complainant's report, an offence was registered as Crime No. 0/17 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 294, 506-B IPC, and investigation ensued. The charge-sheet was filed on 11.12.2017.
During the pendency of trial, the accused/applicant filed an application under Section 347 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/17/2025 11:41:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22230 3 MCRC-29206-2025 (corresponding to Section 310 Cr.P.C.) seeking spot inspection. It was averred therein that in the Dehati Nalisi the place of incident was recorded as Pachmeda Temple, whereas in the spot map the incident was shown in front of the house of Shivkumar Yadav, without any mention of the distance between the two. Further, the spot map reflected "field of Ranveer Singh"
though no such field exists at the said place. Witnesses claimed that the distance between the two places was around 50 metres and it was not possible to witness the crime scene from the field. Thus, inspection of the spot was prayed for.
The prosecution opposed the application, contending that it was filed merely with the intention to delay trial and all relevant aspects had already been covered in investigation.
Vide order dated 20.06.2025, the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the application, holding that Section 347 BNSS permits inspection only if the Judge/Magistrate finds it necessary. Both Dehati Nalisi and spot map sufficiently indicated the place of incident (near Pachmeda Temple/Chabutra of Shivkumar Yadav). Evidence of the Investigating Officer had already been recorded, and the defence had cross-examined him. Any objection could be raised at the stage of final arguments. No circumstances existed necessitating a spot inspection. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present application before this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 is manifestly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/17/2025 11:41:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22230
4 MCRC-29206-2025 urged that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the true scope of Section 347 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 310 Cr.P.C.), which empowers the Court to conduct spot inspection whenever necessary to properly appreciate the evidence adduced during trial.
It is further submitted that the right of defence of an accused is sacrosanct and must be afforded its fullest amplitude. The applicant's application was filed solely to ensure fair adjudication, in view of the material discrepancies between the Dehati Nalisi and the spot map. Denial of such an application has the effect of curtailing the defence and causes grave prejudice to the applicant.
It is further submitted that Section 347 BNSS specifically contemplates local inspection by the Court to enable it to "properly appreciate the evidence given at such inquiry or trial." The provision has been enacted to safeguard both prosecution and defence from prejudice arising out of inconsistencies in the evidence.
It is further submitted that the spot map prepared by the prosecution is inherently doubtful. While the Dehati Nalisi records the place of incident as near Pachmeda Temple, the spot map shows it in front of the house of Shivkumar Yadav, without disclosing the distance between the two. Such inconsistency goes to the root of the prosecution's case and can only be clarified through judicial spot inspection.
It is further pointed out that the spot map mentions the "field of Ranveer Singh" at Point D, though in reality no such field exists. Yet Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/17/2025 11:41:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22230 5 MCRC-29206-2025 Ranveer Singh has been projected as an eye-witness. The Patwari, who could have clarified this position, has been dropped as a witness. This circumstance makes judicial spot inspection all the more necessary.
It is further submitted that the testimony of the witnesses is inconsistent with the spot map. One witness stated that the distance between the alleged spot and Shivkumar Yadav's house is about 50 metres, and that he was present in his agricultural field at the time. However, it is not possible to witness the crime scene from there, since no such field exists. This inconsistency renders spot inspection indispensable in the interest of justice.
It is further submitted that the prosecution has not acted fairly. Material witnesses have been deliberately withheld, and the discrepancies in the spot map have not been addressed. Judicial spot inspection is necessary to test the credibility of the prosecution's case and to safeguard the applicant's right to a fair trial.
Reliance is also placed upon Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P., (2010) 10 SCC 677, wherein it was held that denial of fair opportunity to the accused in criminal proceedings renders the trial unsustainable. The impugned order refusing spot inspection is thus in the teeth of this settled principle of law.
It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has gravely erred in holding that such objections may be raised at the stage of final arguments. Spot inspection is a procedural safeguard intended to assist the Court in appreciating evidence; once denied, the defect cannot be cured by arguments. The impugned order thus effectively debars the applicant from exercising a statutory right and violates the principle of parity between Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/17/2025 11:41:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22230 6 MCRC-29206-2025 prosecution and defence. Hence, the same is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor/Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that no illegality has been committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order and the application was filed only to delay the proceedings.
After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that in the Dehati Nalisi the place of incident has been recorded as near Pachmeda Temple, whereas in the spot map the place of occurrence has been shown as in front of the house of Shivkumar Yadav, without disclosing the distance between the two locations. Further, the spot map records the "field of Ranveer Singh" at Point D, though in reality no such field exists. Yet Ranveer Singh has been cited as an eye-witness. The Patwari, who could have clarified the location, has been dropped as a witness.
This Court is of the considered view that such inconsistencies go to the root of the prosecution case. Spot inspection by the Court under Section 347 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 310 Cr.P.C.) is a procedural safeguard intended to assist in properly appreciating the evidence. Denial of the same, despite such glaring discrepancies, would seriously prejudice the defence.
The Apex Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram, (2004) 8 SCC 660 has categorically held that local inspection by the Court is intended for properly appreciating the evidence already on record Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/17/2025 11:41:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22230 7 MCRC-29206-2025 and the memorandum thereof becomes part of the judicial record. In the present case, once discrepancies are admitted between Dehati Nalisi and spot map, rejection of the request for local inspection cannot be justified.
Further, in the matter of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Apex Court has held that a fair trial is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution and any action which curtails the defence amounts to violation of the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.
Similarly, in the matter of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, the Apex Court has held that denial of reasonable opportunity to the accused to defend himself vitiates the concept of fair trial.
In the matter of Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P., (2010) 10 SCC 677, it has been reiterated that when fair opportunity is denied to the accused, the proceedings cannot be sustained in law.
In light of these binding precedents, this Court is satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the application of the applicant under Section 347 BNSS, has failed to appreciate the true scope and object of the provision and has thereby curtailed the valuable right of defence. The impugned order is therefore unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhind is hereby set aside. The application under Section 347 BNSS, 2023 filed by the applicant is allowed. The learned trial Court is directed to conduct spot inspection of the place of occurrence after due notice to both Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/17/2025 11:41:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22230 8 MCRC-29206-2025 parties and record a memorandum of inspection as required under law, which shall form part of the record of the case. The trial Court is further directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously thereafter in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, the present application stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/17/2025 11:41:00 AM