Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Ladiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19482
1 CRA-15-2016
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 11th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 15 of 2016
RAHUL LADIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State.
JUDGMENT
DICTATED IN OPEN COURT Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This appeal is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 4.12.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No.32/20214 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2 Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that the deceased Dropadibai was a married wife of appellant Rahul Ladiya. 7-8 months prior to the date of the incident, their marriage was performed as per Hindu traditions. The appellant was habitual of stammering, which was not liked by the deceased and that was the cause of the dispute between the wife and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 13-03- 2026 13:01:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19482 2 CRA-15-2016 husband. As per the prosecution case, since the deceased was not very comfortable in the company of the appellant, she used to call him "Bora" and "Pagla" and started fighting with a Sickle and in the course of the altercation, the appellant picked up another Sickle in self-defence and, therefore, present is a case where the appellant should be given benefit of doubt inasmuch as in self-defence, the appellant had caused injuries to the deceased, which eventually turned out to be fatal. Thus, on the aforesaid premises, prayer is made to set aside the finding of conviction recorded against the appellant.
3 Learned Government Advocate for the State in his turn submits that present is not a case of free fight. It is also not a case of self-defence. The FIR was lodged by the father of the appellant as contained in Exhibit P/2. It is a named FIR in which the name of Rahul Ladiya is mentioned as the assailant. Reading from the FIR (Exhibit P/2), it is pointed out that Dara Singh Ladiya lodged the FIR promptly and stated that it was the appellant, who had caused injuries to the deceased resulting in her death. Exhibit P/21 is the FSL report, which reveals that the Sickle Article-D recovered at the instance of the appellant contained human blood and, therefore, it is prayed that there is no scope for any leniency.
4 Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, at this stage, submits that most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, mere recovery of a Sickle and the presence of some bloodstains on the said Sickle, said to be of human origin, are not sufficient circumstances to uphold the conviction of the appellant.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 13-03- 2026 13:01:15NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19482 3 CRA-15-2016 5 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6 Dara Singh Ladiya (PW.1) is father of appellant Rahul Ladiya. He states that the incident took place in the year 2013. On the night of the incident, he had gone to his field to irrigate his land. At about 6:00 AM, his son Raja came to the field and informed him that the deceased had died. Thereafter, this witness returned to his house alongwith the appellant where other persons were also present. He found that Dropadibai was dead. This witness was declared hostile. Leading questions were put to him, however, he admitted his signatures on the FIR (Exhibit P/2), the Postmortem Report (Exhibit P/3), the Lash Supurdginama (Exhibit P/4) and the Arrest Memo of the appellant (Exhibit P/5).
7 Archana Ladiya (PW.2), the mother of appellant Rahul Ladiya, was also declared hostile. Despite leading questions being put to her, this witness did not support the prosecution case. Similarly, the brother and sister of the appellant, namely Raja Ladiya (PW.3) & Neha Ladiya (PW.4) have also not supported the prosecution case.
8 Khuman Singh Silawat (PW.5) states that the deceased was his daughter. Her marriage was solemnized with the appellant about 7-8 months prior to the date of the incident. According to this witness, the appellant used to beat her and quarrel with her. About eight days prior to the date of the incident, the deceased had returned to her matrimonial home. This witness is a signatory to the Lash Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/10), Shav Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/11), and Shav Supurdginama (Exhibit P/4). In his cross-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 13-03- 2026 13:01:15NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19482 4 CRA-15-2016 examination, this witness admits that the marriage of the deceased was performed in a Sammelan. However, he also admits that he had not lodged any complaint regarding any altercation between the deceased and her husband.
9 The fact of the matter is that the incident took place in the house of the appellant. It has come on record and it is not disputed by any of the parties, that except for Dara Singh Ladiya (PW.1), who had gone out, all the other family members were present at home. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant did not take the plea that the deceased was the aggressor and that he had attacked her in self-defence. On the contrary, the appellant took a plea of alibi, however, the same could not be substantiated even by examining Vicky (DW.1) inasmuch as Vicky (DW.1) admits that he did not know the date and time of the incident.
10 When the incident took place within the four corners of the house of the appellant and a Sickle was recovered at his instance with human blood found on it, the plea of self-defence cannot be accepted, particularly when such a plea was not raised by the appellant. Thus, the plea put forth by the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant is not substantiated despite the recovery of another Sickle (Article-A) from the spot.
11 Secondly, as per the provision contained in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving a fact especially within the knowledge of any person lies upon that person. In the present case, the appellant failed to prove his plea of alibi regarding his absence from his Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 13-03- 2026 13:01:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19482 5 CRA-15-2016 home. The appellant also could not substantiate whether there was any incident of trespass or whether any other family member had any grievance against the deceased that could have resulted in her murder. Dr.K.K.Jain (PW.8) has also not opined that the death of Dropadibai was suicidal in nature.
12 In view of these facts and considering the evidence that has come on record, particularly the FSL report and the fact that in the FIR (Exhibit P/2) the father of the appellant has categorically stated that it was the appellant, who caused fatal injuries to the deceased resulting in her death, we are of the considered opinion that the plea of learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant to alter the conviction from one under Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I of the IPC is not made out and similarly, the plea for acquittal is also not made out. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 4.12.2015 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No.32/2014. 13 Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed. 14 Let record of learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith. 15 Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae, is entitled to receive remuneration from the Madhya Pradesh High Court Legal Services Authority for the valuable assistance rendered to this Court in the adjudication of the present appeal.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 13-03-
2026 13:01:15