Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanchhedilal vs The State Of M.P. on 25 May, 2017
1 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT
JABALPUR
Cr.A. No. 1276/2004
1. Baboolal Yadav, S/O Durga Prasad Yadav,
aged about 26 years.
2. Durga Prasad Yadav, S/O Gunthelal Yadav,
aged about 50 years, both residents of Village-
Rani Pipariya, P.S.- Narsinghpur, District-Narsinghpur
(M.P.)
Appellants
Cr.A. No. 1199/2004
Kanchhedilal, S/o Danelal Yadav
aged about 28 years, resident of Village
-Jhirri Khurd, P.S.-Themi, District-Narsinghpur
(M.P.)
VERSUS
State of Madhya Pradesh
through P.S.-Narsinghpur,
District- Narsinghpur, (M.P.)
Respondent
Present: Hon'ble Shri Hemant Gupta, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar
...............................................................................................................
For appellants : Shri S.C. Datt, Senior counsel with
Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate.
For respondent : Smt. Manjeet P.S. Chackal, Panel
Lawyer.
............................................................................................................
2 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 25th day of May, 2017) Per C.V. Sirpurkar, J.
1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1276 and 1199 of 2004 arose from the same judgment dated 07.07.2004 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No. 01/2004 (State of M.P. Vs. Baboolal and 4 others), whereby the appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal have been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:
So Name of the Provision Sentence of Fine Default . Appellant of I.P.C. Imprisonment in Rs. Sentence N o.
1. Baboolal S. 302 Imprisonment 2,000/- R.I. for for life. 1 year S. 201 R.I. for 3 500/- R.I. for 2 years months S. 182 R.I. for 6 500/- R.I. for 2 months months
2. Durga Prasad S. 302 Imprisonment 2,000/- R.I. for for life. 1 year S. 201 R.I. for 3 500/- R.I. for 2 years months
3. Kanchhedilal S. 302 Imprisonment 2,000/- R.I. for for life. 1 year S. 201 R.I. for 3 500/- R.I. for 2 years months 3 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 S. 182 R.I. for 6 500/- R.I. for 2 months months All substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.
Co-accused persons Ramsingh and Ginda @ Gendlal have been acquitted of the charges under Section 302, 302 read with section 149 and 201 of the I.P.C. Since, both of these appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise from the same judgment, they have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. In a nutshell, the prosecution case may be stated thus:
(a) Appellant Baboolal had married deceased Leela Bai about 6-7 years before the date of the incident. Appellant Durga Prasad is father of appellant Baboolal and appellant Kanchhedilal is brother-in-law (sister's husband) of appellant Baboolal. Deceased Leela Bai had instituted proceedings against the appellant Baboolal and his mother under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the pendency of aforesaid proceedings, an attempt was made at reconciliation. As a result, on 30.07.2003, learned Magistrate directed Leela Bai to live with appellant Baboolal on an experimental basis. Since, deceased Leela Bai expressed willingness to live with her husband Baboolal, learned Magistrate directed the parties on 01.09.2003, to live together. On that day, appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal had attended the Court.
Deceased Leela Bai and her father Phool Singh (PW/5) had also appeared before the Court. Appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal took deceased Leela Bai along with them from the Court on 01.09.2003.
(b) Railway Gangman, Roshan Singh (PW/7) had spotted a headless dead body of a women lying along the railway track near Khamtara Gate at about 09.00 - 09.15 p.m. on 01.09.2003 between 4 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 Poll No. 908/1 and 908/0. Intimation of the dead body was given to P.S.- Narsinghpur at about 07.20 a.m. on 02.09.2003. Appellant Baboolal accompanied by appellant Kanchhedilal, lodged a report on 02.09.2003 (Ex.P/1) at police out-post Singhpur, P.S.-Narsinghpur to the effect that while he was returning along with his wife deceased Leela Bai and his 3 years daughter from the Court on 1.09.2003, just outside his village Rani Pipariya, Leela Bai told him that she wanted to answer call of nature. Thereafter, Leela Bai went inside the fields for aforesaid purpose. When she did not return for 15-20 minutes, appellant Baboolal searched for her but she could not be located. Since, there was no claimant of the dead body, it was buried. However, the father of the deceased, Phool Singh and her other relatives identified the clothes and other articles on 06.09.2003. On 10.09.2003, pursuant to the disclosure statements made by the appellant Baboolal under section 27 of the Evidence Act, a skin and fleshless human skull and hair were discovered from inside the Soybean crop in Sunil Darda's field, which is located along side railway track from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. On the same day, on the disclosure statements made by the appellant Kanchhedilal, the Tawal (a sharp edged implement with a wooden butt used for digging the earth) with blood like stains, was recovered from his father-in-law's house.
(c) During investigation, it was learnt that on 1.9.2003, Subhash (PW/9) had seen deceased Leela Bai in the company of the present appellants and co-accused persons Ramsingh and Gendlal. Durga Prasad had told him that they had entered into a compromise with their daughter-in-law and they were taking her to Dulha Dev Temple for Darshan. During investigation, it was also learnt that on the day next to the date of the incident, appellants Baboolal and Kanchhedilal had visited Tarachand (PW/10) and had confessed that they had killed Leela Bai and her dead body was lying on the railway track near Khamtara Gate.
5 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 20043. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
(i) the deceased Leela Bai had dragged the family of appellant Baboolal in the Court; therefore, they had a strong motive to kill her;
(ii) the headless headless body of a female recovered from the railway track near Khamtara Gate, belonged to deceased Leela Bai;
(iii) her skin, fleshless skull and hair were discovered upon the disclosure statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the appellant Baboolal;
(iv) a blood-stained Tawal was seized upon the disclosure statements made by the appellant Kanchhedilal;
(v) appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal were last seen in the company of the deceased and they had taken her from the Court;
(vi) appellants Baboolal and Kanchhedilal had tried to mislead the police by lodging a false "lost person report" regarding deceased Leela Bai on 02.09.2003.
4. On the basis of aforesaid chain of circumstances, appellants Baboolal and Kanchhedilal were convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 182 of the I.P.C. and appellant Durga Prasad was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. Since Subhash (PW/9) had turned hostile and there was no evidence that co-accused persons Ram Singh and Gendlal were also seen in the company of deceased Leela Bai and there was no other evidence against them, they were acquitted of all charges.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal has challenged the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court mainly on the grounds that the headless headless body found lying on the railway track near Khamtara Gate was not shown to and identified by the parents of the deceased. Thus, there was no sufficient basis for presumption that it belonged to deceased Leela Bai. Likewise, there was no sufficient ground to 6 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 presume that the skull said to have been recovered from the Soybean field belonged to the deceased. In any case, the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case; therefore, it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the skull was recovered at the instance of the appellant Baboolal. Likewise, the panch witnesses had also not supported the fact that on the basis of disclosure statements made by the appellant Kanchhedilal, a blood stained Tawal was recovered from his father-in-law's house. In any case, the prosecution had failed to file the Serologist's report to establish that there indeed was blood on the Tawal so seized. Thus, there was no link to connect the Tawal allegedly seized at the instance of the appellant Kanchhedilal, to the crime. It has further been contended that the last seen together is a very weak piece of evidence and even that circumstance was not properly established because appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal had merely left the Court premises together with the deceased, it does not mean that they were last seen in the company of the deceased. As such, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the appellants deserve the benefit of doubt; therefore, it has been prayed that the appellants be acquitted.
6. Learned panel lawyer for the respondent State on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment.
7. On perusal of the record and due consideration of the rival contentions, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of circumstantial evidence that the appellant Baboolal had committed murder of deceased Leela Bai, had caused disappearance of evidence of their crime and had lodged a false lost person report in respect of deceased Leelabai; therefore, his appeal must fail. However, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal were also complicit in the murder; therefore, they deserves to be acquitted extending them the benefit of doubt. The reasons for our conclusions are as follows:
7 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 20048. First of all, we shall consider whether the trial Court was justified in concluding that the dead body found on the railway track and the skull found in the adjacent field belonged to deceased Leela Bai. The headless body was found on the railway track at about 09.00 p.m.- 09.15 p.m. On 01.09.2003, the date on which deceased Leela Bai was last seen alive. It is true that the headless body was not shown to her parents Phool Singh (PW/5) and Sukhwati Bai (PW/8); however, Phool Singh (PW/5) has stated that when he learnt that a dead body was recovered near Village Khamtara, he had gone to the police and reported that his daughter was also missing. He had also told the police that she was wearing red bangles and red Saree with golden brocade; whereon, the police had shown him the clothes and broken pieces of bangles found on the dead body. He had identified the articles as those belonging to his daughter. Since, Phool Singh (PW/5) had seen his daughter deceased Leela Bai on 01.09.2003 in the Court, it would not have been difficult for him to identify the Saree, blouse and bangles belonging to his daughter and which were found on the dead body. The identification memo (Ex.P/9) was prepared by the Investigating Officer in that behalf. It bears the signature of Phool Singh (PW/5). Sukhwati Bai (PW/8) has also supported the statements of her husband Phool Singh. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of Phool Singh sounds natural and there is no reason to suspect its veracity on this point. Thus, the trial Court was justified in recording a finding that the headless body belonged to deceased Leela Bai.
9. So far as the recovery of skull is concerned, reliance may be placed upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471, wherein it was held that:
"Three possibilities are there in such a situation when the accused has not stated that the incriminating material was concealed by him. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it, and the third is that he would have been told by another person that 8 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities the criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because the accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well-justified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by him. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act."
10. In the present case the skull has been recovered on the basis of disclosure statements made by the appellant Baboolal in a field adjacent to the railway track from under the crop. Thus, the skull was not in a visible condition. Appellant Baboolal had knowledge that the skull was concealed in such a place. From his knowledge, only three inferences may possibly be drawn:
(i) appellant Baboolal had himself concealed it;
(ii) he had seen someone else concealing the skull at that place and;
(iii) someone had told him that a human skull has been concealed at that place.
11. Having disclosed the presence of a damning article like human skull in a concealed condition, the burden was upon the appellant Baboolal to explain that he had not concealed it himself but had either seen it being concealed by someone else or he was informed about the presence of the skull at that place by someone else. He has not discharged that burden; therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that it was concealed by himself.
12. A theory was advanced before the trial Court that the deceased did not want to rejoin her husband and when she was directed by the Court to live with her husband, she ran away and committed suicide by lying under a running train. In the process, her head was severed from the body and rolled down in the Soybean crop planted in the adjacent field. However, this theory has several flaws and needs to be rejected outright.
9 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 200413. First of all, the deceased was sent to live with her husband for about a month on an experimental basis. Her parents Phool Singh and Sukhwati Bai have deposed before the Court that she had expressed her willingness to rejoin her husband permanently. No one had compelled her rejoin her husband. Due to the willingness expressed by her, the Court had directed the restoration of conjugal relations on 01.09.2003.; therefore, there are no grounds for presuming that the deceased was forced into rejoining her husband and had therefore, committed suicide.
14. It is true that Dr. Rajesh Singhai (PW/11), who had conducted the post-mortem examination, has admitted the suggestion in his cross-examination that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by running train; however, there is no basis for aforesaid opinion. It may be noted that there was no other injury, not even an abrasion, found upon the Headless body. It is highly improbable that a human being cut by a running train would not suffer any other injury. Most importantly, in the spot map (Ex.P/7), it has been clearly shown that the dead body was lying on one side of the down track. The skull was seized from the field, which was on the other side of the track for up trains. Thus, there is no possibility that after being severed by the wheels of a running train, the head would have rolled over into the adjoining field, from where it was discovered by the police. In these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly held that the aforesaid theory put forward by the defence, is not acceptable.
15. On the basis of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the dead body without the head found on the railway track near Khamtara Gate belonged to the deceased Leela Bai and the skull recovered from the field of Sunil Darda also belonged her.
16. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that a compromise had been arrived at between appellant Baboolal and his family members on one hand and deceased Leela Bai and her family members on the other; therefore, the appellant Baboolal 10 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 and his family members were looking forward to a congenial marital life for appellant Baboolal with deceased Leela Bai. As such, the murder of deceased Leela Bai was farthest from their mind. However, when we consider the background in which the offence was committed, we find that it was deceased Leela Bai, who had instituted cases against the appellant Baboolal and her mother under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. In addition thereto, she had also instituted proceedings against appellant Baboolal under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Thus, she was instrumental in bringing appellant Baboolal and his mother on the steps of a police station. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant had no motive at all to kill deceased Leela Bai.
17. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has also contended that the panch witness Raju @ Ajay Singh (PW/3) has turned hostile and has not supported the fact that in his presence, appellant Baboolal had disclosed to the police in custody that he had concealed Leela Bai's head in the field of Sunil Darda in the midst of Soyabean plants. Likewise, Surendra Malviya (PW/2) has also not supported the fact that the appellant Kanchhedilal had informed the police that he had concealed the blood stained Tawal at the residence of his father-in- law's. Therefore, for want of corroboration, the trial Court erred in placing reliance upon the statements of Investigating Officer, B.S. Sengar (PW/12) in this regard. It is true that panch witnesses have not corroborated the fact that appellants Baboolal and Kanchhedilal had made disclosure statements regarding the skull and Tawal. However, we may note that the Investigating Officer has withstood the cross- examination well. It is not the case of the appellants that he had inimical relations with the appellants. Thus, there is no reason for the Investigating Officer to have falsely implicated the appellants Baboolal and Kanchhedilal. In any case, a human skull is a highly incriminating piece of evidence. Such skulls are also not readily available. In these circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the 11 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 statements of the Investigating Officer that appellants Baboolal and Kanchhedilal had made such disclosure statements and pursuant to those statements, the skull and Tawal was recovered at the instance of the appellants Baboolal and Kanchhedilal, respectively.
18. Now, we shall proceed to consider the important circumstance that is available at least against the appellant Baboolal. That circumstance is the so called last seen together. Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it would be apposite to take a look at the prevailing legal position.
19. The apex Court has held in the case of Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U. P., 2014 CRI. L. J. 2371 that:
It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. The conduct of the accused and the fact of last seen together plus other circumstances have to be looked into. Normally, last seen theory comes into play when the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. It will be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. However, if the prosecution, on the basis of reliable evidence, establishes that the missing person was seen in the company of the accused and was never seen thereafter, it is obligatory on the part of the accused to explain the circumstances in which the missing person and the accused parted company.
20. Likewise, in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram, AIR 2007 SC 144, it has been held that:
When any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to when and how he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to discharge the burden in a case based on circumstantial evidence, that itself provides additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him.
21. The Supreme Court has observed in the cases of Bodh Raj v. State of J. and K. AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3164, State of U. P. v. SatishAIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 1000 and Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of Andra Pradesh AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1656 that the last seen theory comes into play 12 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases.
22. In the back-drop of aforesaid legal position, reverting back to the facts of the case we may find that Phool Singh (PW/5), father of the deceased has stated on 01.09.2003, that a compromise was to be recorded in the Court in the criminal case under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. For aforesaid purpose, appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal had come to the Court along with deceased Leela Bai. After recording of the compromise, the case was disposed of and Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal had taken deceased Leela Bai from the Court. Thus, Phool Singh (PW/5) had last seen the deceased alive in the company of the three appellants. It appears natural that the close relatives of the husband would appear in the Court for compromise in a matrimonial matter to lend assurance to their commitment that they would keep the woman well. Moreover, in the examination of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., all three appellants have admitted that Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal had gone to the Court and after compromise, had taken the deceased Leela Bai along with them. Thus, this is an undisputed position that Leela Bai had left the Court premises along with three appellants.
23. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the appellants has contended that last seen together is a very weak piece of evidence. Moreover, the circumstance that the appellants had left the Court 13 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 premises along with the deceased Leela Bai does not mean that they were last seen together with the deceased. In the opinion of this Court, aforesaid argument needs to be separately considered in respect of Baboolal on one hand and Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal on the other.
24. Baboolal was husband of the deceased and Durga Prasad was her father-in-law. Both of them lived together at Rani Pipariya. Deceased Leela Bai was also to be taken to her matrimonial home at Rani Pipariya; therefore, it is natural to assume that at least Baboolal and Durga Prasad must have accompanied the deceased to Rani Pipariya. In case, Baboolal or Durga Prasad had parted company with deceased, the burden was upon them to explain under what circumstance, they got separated from the deceased. An explanation is forthcomming from the appellant Baboolal, who had lodged the report of "Lost Person" (Ex.P/1), wherein he had stated that while he was returning from the Court, just outside the village, the deceased told him that she wanted to answer the call of nature and had gone into the fields, never to return. In that report, the presence of appellant Durga Prasad has not been shown. In view of recovery of skull belonged to the deceased at the instance of the appellant Baboolal, the explanation given by him in the lost person report is not acceptable. However, it can be used to exonerate appellant Durga Prasad. In any case, there is no circumstance other than the so called last seen together against him on record. This circumstance by itself, may not be sufficient to hold him guilty for murder of the deceased.
25. Thus, the chain of circumstance beginning with the presence of motive to recovery of skull of the deceased at the instance of the appellant Baboolal and ending with the circumstance of last seen together, is complete so far as appellant Baboolal is concerned. However, it is incomplete with regard to appellant Durgaprasad.
26. So far as the appellant Kanchhedilal is concerned, he is brother-in-law of the appellant Baboolal. He lived in a different village 14 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 i.e. Jhirri Khurd, which fell under a different police station namely Themi. Thus, even if it is assumed that he had left the Court premises along with other appellants and deceased Leela Bai, he may have parted their company and left for his own village. Therefore, merely on the basis of circumstance that he had left the Court premises along with other co-appellants, it cannot be concluded that he was responsible for the murder of the deceased. It is also worth mentioning that the Tawal seized at the instance of the appellant Kanchhedilal was found to contain blood like stains. It was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for serological examination; however, no report of the Serologist has either been produced or proved. Thus, it is not proved that the Tawal was stained with blood. Hence, there is no link to connect it with the crime. Subhash (PW/9) has turned hostile; therefore, it is not proved that he saw the five accused persons including the appellant Kanchhedilal taking deceased Leela Bai to Dulha Dev Temple for Darshan on the date of the incident. Likewise, Tarachandra (PW/10) has also turned hostile. Thus, extra-judicial confession allegedly made by Baboolal and Kanchhedilal to Tarachandra (PW/10) has also not been proved. As such, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to convict appellant Kanchhedilal for murder of deceased; therefore, he deserves the benefit of doubt so far as the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. is concerned.
27. Coming to the offence under Section 182 of the I.P.C., it may be noted that though the appellant Kanchhedilal was present when the false report of lost person (Ex.P/1) was lodged with the police by Baboolal; however, he may have been acting on the basis of the information received by him from the appellant Baboolal. As such, he cannot be held guilty of furnishing false information to a public servant either.
28. On the basis of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant Baboolal under Sections 302, 201 and 182 of the I.P.C.. However, it 15 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 was not justified in convicting the appellant Durga Prasad under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. and appellant Kanchhedilal of the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 182 of the I.P.C. Thus, the appellants Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal deserve the benefit of doubt in respect of the aforesaid offences and are liable to be acquitted.
29. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.1276/2004 is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of appellant Baboolal under Sections 302, 201 and 182 of the I.P.C. and the sentence imposed therefor by the trial Court is affirmed. The conviction of appellant Durga Prasad under section 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentence imposed therefore is set aside and he is acquitted of aforesaid offences.
30. The Criminal Appeal No. 1199/2004 is allowed. The conviction of the appellant Kanchhedilal under Sections 302, 201 and 182 of the I.P.C. and the sentence imposed therefor by the trial Court is set-aside and he is acquitted of aforesaid offences.
Certified copy as per rules.
{Hemant Gupta} {C.V. Sirpurkar}
Chief Justice Judge
sh
16 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
{Division Bench:Hon'ble Shri Hemant Gupta, The Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri C.V. Sirpurkar, Judge} Criminal Appeal No. 1276/2004 Baboolal Yadav & Anr.
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Criminal Appeal No. 1199/2004 Kanchhedilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
JUDGMENT For consideration {C.V. Sirpurkar} JUDGE /05/2017 Hon'ble The Chief Justice {Hemant Gupta} Chief Justice Post for: /05/2017 {C.V. Sirpurkar} JUDGE