Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalchand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946
1 CRA-122-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 122 of 2016
GENDLAL @ GINDU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Arti Vishwakarma - Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 323 of 2016
LALCHAND AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Prem Narayan Verma - Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
(DICTATED IN OPEN COURT) Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal These appeals are filed by the convicted persons namely, Gendlal @ Gindu, Lalchand, Roopchand @ Panda, Kaliram and Ramdayal being aggrieved of judgment dated 23.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwarda, District-Chhindwara (M.P.) in S.T. No.119 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 2 CRA-122-2016 2023, whereby all the accused persons have been convicted and sentenced as under:-| Conviction Sentence Imprisonment in Section Act Imprisonment Fine lieu of fine Life R.I. for 06 302/149 I.P.C. Rs.2,000/-
Imprisonment months
148 I.P.C. R.I. for 01 year - -
Rs.1,000/-
201/149 I.P.C. R.I. for 03 years R.I. for 02 months
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye-witness account. Prosecution has planted certain witnesses subsequently and their testimony is not trustworthy. It is submitted that in a case of circumstantial evidence it is evident that there was no eye-witness to the incident, when chain of circumstances is not complete, then, conviction could not have been recorded. It is submitted that present case is a glaring one, wherein dismissal of the appeal has become a sine qua non to uphold the honesty and credibility of the Trial Court Judge; however, there is a clear lack of proper appreciation of the evidence and facts in their correct perspective, which has resulted in an illegal conviction. Hence, the same deserves to be set aside.
3. Reading from the evidence of Agghan (PW-4), it is stated that accused persons are known to him. He had met Komal Giri in the market. Komal Giri died. In paragraph no.1 of his examination-in-chief, this witness Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 3 CRA-122-2016 stated that when he had returned after looking at the fields and he had met a boy namely, Sonu, who had informed him that Kaliram, Roopchand, Lalchand, Gendlal, Ramdayal were armed with lathi, danda and had run after Baba Komal on account of suspicion that Baba Komal was involved in black magic.
4. Thus, it is pointed out that Agghan (PW-4) is not an eye-witness. He is a hearsay witness. Sonu has not been examined by the prosecution. It is pointed out that Basanta (PW-5) though claims that he had gone to the house of Agghan. He along with Chamrulal were going to Harrai, then on way, they had crossed Gendlal, Kaliram, Roopchand, Ramdayal and Manja. They had seen from the sides of a khakra tree that accused were beating Baba. After beating Baba, two persons i.e. Roopchand and Kaliram had gone towards the road whereas, others had dragged deceased and had brought him to the nala . Three persons had collected wood and put Komal Giri on fire. However, in cross-examination, it is pointed out that Basanta admitted that he had not informed either the Kotwar or the Sarpanch or the Police Station about the said incident. He admits that he had not informed anybody in his family about the said incident. It is pointed out that Chamrulal (PW-6) has also given similar statements as have been given by Basanta (PW-5). Thus, the testimony of Agghan (PW-4), Basanta (PW-5) and Chamrulal (PW-6) is highly improbable. They are neither the eye-witnesses nor that of last seen. If they had witnessed the incident or had gathered knowledge about the incident, then, matter would have reported promptly.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 4 CRA-122-2016
5. It is submitted that Bahori (PW-7) is a hearsay witness. It is further pointed out that doctor of post-mortem Dr. Virendra Maravi (PW-14) admitted that he could not give duration of death and therefore, evidence of last seen becomes irrelevant. Thus, it is submitted that present is a case of circumstantial evidence where chain of circumstances being not complete, acquittal is required to be recorded.
6. Mr. Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn, supports the impugned judgment and submits that teeth of deceased were found at the place of the incident. They were subjected to FSL reporting to confirm that deceased was Komal Giri.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, Hetram (PW-1), stated that he is Village Kotwar. Agghan (PW-4) had informed him that a dead-body was lying in the nala of marghatai, then he had gone along with 6-7 persons and then, gave intimation at Police Station-Harrai as contained in Marg Intimation (Exhibit-P/1). Thus, it is evident that it was Agghan (PW-4), who had given intimation to Hetram (PW-1) about the fact that a dead-body was lying in the 'N ala' of marghatai. However, in the Marg intimation (Exhibit-P/1), it is not mentioned that who were the assailants. On the contrary, it is mentioned that on the information of Agghan (PW-4), Hetram (PW-1) had visited the place of incident alongwith Govind Patel, Roopchand Gond, Hriday Vishwakarma & Ghanshyam and found that a half burnt dead body of an old person was lying and on the basis of that, report was lodged. Thus, Marg intimation recorded Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 5 CRA-122-2016 at the behest of Hetram (PW-1) on the information given by Agghan (PW-4) , when fails to mention a fact that Agghan had seen the accused persons i.e. the appellants beating the deceased Komal or that he was informed by Sonu that Komal Baba was beaten by the accused persons is the first glaring omission in the prosecution case.
8 . Exhibit-P/3 is the 'Naksha Panchayatnama' which contains signatures of five persons but in this 'Naksha Panchayatnama' also, it is not mentioned that what was the cause of death. On the other hand, it is mentioned that cause of death is not understandable and therefore, they requested for post-mortem.
9. FIR was lodged on 13.01.2013 as contained in Exhibit-P/17. In this FIR, lodged on 13.01.2013, it is mentioned that as per Marg investigation, FIR was lodged. Names of all the accused persons are mentioned in the FIR, but Police has not enclosed marg statements to point out that on what basis the accused i.e. present set of appellants, were named in the FIR.
10. Another glaring aspect is that the evidence of so called last seen is dated 07.01.2013, but none of the prosecution witnesses namely Agghan (PW-4), Basanta (PW-5) and Chamrulal (PW-6) have stated as to on which date they had seen the incident.
11. There is no seizure. Dandas and lathis which were seized were not subjected to FSL reporting. One 'Kamandal' was also recovered at the instance of the accused persons but there is no identification that it belongs to the deceased Kamal. Post-mortem report is exhibit-P/28 but though it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 6 CRA-122-2016 mentioned that deceased died due to multiple injuries in head and thoracic part of the body which resulted in cardio respiratory arrest but duration of death since post-mortem is not mentioned in the report dated 12.01.2013.
12. Mombati Bai (PW-15), stated that Komal Giri was her husband. He had returned home on 04.01.2013. On 05.01.2013, he had received a phone call from Babu Sahu, then he had left his house at about 10:00 am, saying that he is going to Harrai and shall return by Monday. He did not return on Monday, then his son Amar Giri on 09.01.2013 had called Babu Sahu, then Babu Sahu was not available. On 11.01.2013, Babu called and informed that somebody had killed Baba and burnt him. Then, she had gone along with her son Amar Giri to Harrai where Police had also reached and then, in the Nala, they had identified the dead-body of her husband which was half burnt. This statement was recorded on 14.01.2023 after registration of FIR. She had made omnibus allegation that one boy had died and it was suspected that boy was victim of black magic in the hands of her husband.
13. As far as Hetram (PW-1) is concerned, it has come on record, son of Govind Patel had died. On 07.01.2013, Gangajali was started at about 10:00 am. His thirteenth day programme was to be performed on 13.01.2013. Gangajali was performed by Gendlal on 07.01.2013. Gangajali continued from 10:00 am to 03:00 pm. This witness admits that all the accused persons were present being members of the family. About 150 other persons were also present in the programme. After 03:00 pm, community lunch was served and that programme continued upto 09:00 pm. All the accused persons were Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 7 CRA-122-2016 present till 09:00 pm. Thus, from 10:00 am to 09:00 pm at least, accused persons could not have been seen in the company of the deceased. This witness also admits that after Marg information, Basanta, Bholagir, Kamal, Kamal, Chamru, Chhendgar, Chunnilal, Govind, Roopchand and Gindu Manja so also Kaliram and Ramdayal were taken in custody and were beaten everyday.
14. Chhedi Giri (PW-2) states that in January on Friday, son of Komal had informed him that Komal died, then he had gone along with son of Komal to Police Station-Harrai, then he had gone to Village Mahulkuhi where dead body of Kamal was recovered and necessary writings were done. In cross-examination this witness admits that Komal Giri was his Uncle-in- Law. He admits that Police had not given him any notice for appearance.
15. Bholagiri (PW-3) stated that all the accused persons are known to him so also deceased Komal Giri. He states that when Police had arrested accused then, Gendlal had informed that since Komal Giri was lighting a lamp at marghatai, therefore, he was beaten with danda and stones. Ramdayal had informed that they had hidden dandas under a chivla tree. Thereafter, in cross-examination, this witness admits that he is resident of Madhai. Accused persons are residents of different village. Though this witness is witness of seizure and memorandum, but in paragraph no.3 of his cross-examination, this witness admits that after seeing the accused persons, he cannot identify as to whom of them is Gendlal. He admits that he does not know accused Manja, Roopchand, Kaliram and Ramdayal separately from Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 8 CRA-122-2016 their names. Thus, contention of this witness that infront of him, memorandums were recorded and seizures were made becomes doubtful when he does not know any of the accused persons by name. No TIP was carried out to ascertain the identity of accused persons.
16. Agghan (PW-4), admitted that he is a hearsay witness. Sonu had given intimation to him. In paragraph no.4, he admitted that age of Sonu must be 5 to 6 years. This is another unnatural circumstance, inasmuch as, a 5 to 6 year old boy knowing all the accused persons repeating their names verbatim to Agghan (PW-4) is unnatural. In paragraph no.5, this witness admits that Sonu had informed him that he had in turn not informed anybody that accused had run after the deceased. This witness admits that the day he had learnt that accused had chased Komal Giri, he had not made any report at Police Station-Harrai. This witness has thus, admitted that he had not given any intimation to Police or Sarpanch or Kotwar or any other responsible person of the village despite knowing the fact that accused persons had chased deceased Komal Giri.
17. Basanta (PW-5) and Chamrulal (PW-6) are also not reliable witnesses. There are contradictions in their case-diary statements and besides it, they had never given any intimation to any person. In fact, version of Agghan (PW-4) is doubtful inasmuch as stated that Sonu informed him about the incident, when, he had contacted Village Kotwar Hetram (PW-1) on 11.01.2013, then he should have given complete version at least to the Village Kotwar, therefore, credibility of these prosecution witnesses is highly Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 9 CRA-122-2016 doubtful.
18. Bahori (PW-7) is a hearsay witness. He stated that Baba, who was called by him for examination of water is the person whose dead body was lying. This witness admits that who killed Komal Giri is not known to him.
19. Ramdas Markam (PW-8), Village Patwari had prepared 'Nazri Naksha' (Exhibit-P/6) and admitted several lacunas in the 'Nazri Naksha'.
20. Chunnilal (PW-9) stated that Komal Giri is not known to him and he has no information in regard to death of Komal Giri.
21. Sharif Khan (PW-10), Retired Head Constable, had recorded FIR registering case Crime No.03 of 2013 and had made certain seizures.
22. Narendra Upadhyay (PW-11) stated that he had recorded Marg No.01 of 2013 as contained in Exhibit-P/1.
23. Gangaram Usera (PW-12), Investigating Officer of the case. This witness admits in paragraph no.3 of cross-examination that none of the witnesses had informed him that there was any dispute between the deceased and the accused persons. This witness on his own stated that at the time of the incident, certain persons witnessed marpeet but this evidence of marpeet is not corroborated especially when star prosecution witness (PW-1) admits that from 10:00 am till 09:00 pm, all the accused persons were present in the house of Govind Patel where death rituals were being performed on account of death of his son. In paragraph no.4, this witness admits that prior to 11.01.2013, none of the witnesses had given any intimation in the Police Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 10 CRA-122-2016 Station. This witness also admits that no proof has been produced before the Court that deceased was knowing any black magic.
24. A.S.I. Rajesh Kashyap (PW-13) had made certain recoveries, but it is an admitted fact that none of the recovered articles were subjected to any FSL reporting.
25. As discussed earlier, Dr. Virendra Maravi (PW-14) in paragraph no.4 stated that death could not have occurred on account of head injury, then, stated that it was possible. He has not given the duration of death since post-mortem.
26. Mombati Bai Giri (PW-15) was declared hostile. She has not supported prosecution case. In cross-examination, she has admitted that when her husband had left her house, that time, she was not in her house. She stated that her son and daughter-in-law had informed that Komal Giri had informed them that he is going to house of Babu Sahu of Harrai. Babu Sahu has not been examined. In cross-examination, this witness admits that Babu Sahu is not a resident of Harrai but is a resident of Village - Rabra. In paragraph no.5, this witness admits that when her son Amir Giri had called Babu Sahu on 09.01.2013, then Babu Sahu had informed that her husband Komal Giri was with him. This is a vital piece of evidence, which discards all the evidence of last seen on 07.01.2013 as deposed by Agghan (PW-4), Basanta (PW-5) and PW-6 Chamrulal (PW-6)
27. Amar Giri (PW-16) stated that he came to know about death of his Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 11 CRA-122-2016 father on 13.01.2013. He admits that he had no conversation with his father from 05.01.2023 to 13.01.2013. He admits that he has no intimation as to where his father was from 05.01.2013 to 13.01.2013. He admits that his statements were recorded by the Police after three days of the recovery of dead-body. He admits that his father Komal Giri was staying with Babu Sahu at Mahulkui. When these facts are taken into consideration, then the evidence of last heard of is that of Babu Sahu and not of present set of accused persons.
28. We are sorry to note that the learned trial Court did not apply its mind. It did not bother to appreciate the facts and the evidence on record in the correct perspective. It did not appreciate that it is not a case of direct evidence. It failed to appreciate that the conduct of star prosecution witnesses was doubtful and shady. It also failed to note that the evidence of last seen was not in the company of the present set of appellants but in the company of Babu Sahu as has been deposed by Mombati Bai (PW-15) and Amar Giri (PW-16), therefore, Komal Giri was heard of to be present in the company of Babu Sahu on 09.01.2026, then, onus was on the prosecution to have interrogated Babu Sahu and to find out the truth but instead of adopting a correct path of investigation, I.O. of the case chose an easier one and learned trial Court got swayed and recorded a finding of conviction without their being any eye-witness account and also there being no completion of chain of circumstances.
29. We are sorry to note that learned trial Court did not even bother to Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 12 CRA-122-2016 refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of Maharasthra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 to show that how the chain of circumstances was completed.
30. We are of the view that as per paragraph no.153 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda (Supra) , following parameters are required to be established which are as under:
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (') where the following observations were made:
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 13 CRA-122-2016 the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
31. Thus, once we come to a conclusion that chain of circumstances is not complete. Hetram (PW-1) has himself admitted that accused persons were present in the house of Govind Patel on 07.01.2013 from 10:00 am to 09:00 pm. There is no timing given by Agghan (PW-4), Basanta (PW-5) and Chamrulal (PW-6), when they had seen or heard accused persons to be chasing Komal Giri, the evidence of Mombati Bai Giri (PW-15) and Amar Giri (PW-16) is to the effect that when they had called Babu Sahu, then Babu Sahu had informed them on 09.01.2013 that Komal Giri was in his company and in fact, Amar Giri (PW-16) admits that Komal Giri had informed him on 05.01.2013 that he is going to the house of Babu Sahu, we are of view that chain of circumstances is not complete and the judgment of conviction is passed without proper appreciation of evidence taking away 10 years of precious life of the accused persons. Impugned judgment having been passed on conjectures and surmises not duly supported with the legal evidence and apparently reflecting lack of appreciation of evidence on the part of the learned trial Court Judge deserves to be and is hereby set aside.
32. State is directed to compensate each of the appellants by paying a sum of Rs.25,000/-.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19946 14 CRA-122-2016 (VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN) JUDGE JUDGE
I respectfully disagree with the judgment written by my brother Judge and have written my own separate judgment, which is enclosed.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN) JUDGE Hon'ble Brother Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen, in Cr.A. No.122/2016 and Cr.A. No.323/2016, has recorded a dissenting opinion, therefore, both the judgments are placed before your Lordship (Hon'ble the Chief Justice) to do the needful.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE julie Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/1/2026 7:06:16 PM