Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durgesh Aka Chotu Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271
1 CRA-2223-2025
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 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2223 of 2025
DURGESH AKA CHOTU RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. M. R. Verma - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shweta Yadav - Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State
ORDER
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.01.2025 passed in S.T. 65/2022 by learned Session Judge, Chhindwara, [State of M.P. through Police Station Kundipura, District Chhindwara Vs. Durgesh alias Chhotu Raghuaanshi] by which the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC sentenced him for Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and default, to undergo additional R.I. for six months.
3. The prosecution story in short is that on 14.05.2022, complainant (Arvind Yadav) lodged a report at Police Station, Kundipura, District Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 2 CRA-2223-2025 Chhindwara, wherein he stated that he has two brothers. Arjun Yadav (deceased) and a third brother who is unmarried, and deceased Arjun Yadav was running Stall of Gupchup (water ball). On 13.05.2022 his brother Arjun Yadav went to the field behind their house for cutting the grass, but when he did not return back till evening, then they searched for him. On 14th May, 2022 morning when complainant, his mother, brother, and other people of the locality went to search in the field and near the Well situated in the field, they saw that on the edge of the well, a 'Gamchha,' shoes and some money, and a bag were kept there. Then, on suspicion, they dropped a 'Gal' (hook) (an instrument with sharp edges to search for any things in a Well), and when they tried, the dead body of his brother (Arjun Yadav) was caught in the 'Gal', body was taken out of Well, on the basis of information Merg No. 46/2022 was registered and an inquiry was commenced. The witnesses were called. The dead body was sent for postmortem. In postmortem, doctor opined that the cause of death is due to drowning in water. Statements of family members were recorded. From the statement of the witnesses, it came to the knowledge that on 13.05.2022 at about 11:30 PM, Arjun Yadav was going with his friend Durgesh alias Chhotu, towards the field, but they did not come back and were searched for the next day i.e. 14.05.2022. Family members of the deceased informed the police that the deceased was selling 'Gupchup' (water ball), but due to shortage of money, he was a little disturbed and had stopped selling 'Gupchup.' Previously, the deceased, Arjun Yadav had loaned Rs.1000/- to the accused/appellant Durgesh alias Chhotu Raghuwanshi, and he wanted that money back, but the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 3 CRA-2223-2025 accused/appellant was not returning the money, and instead pushed the deceased into the a Well, and therefore Arjun Yadav died. Therefore, FIR bearing Crime No.325/2022, under Section 302 of IPC, was registered. An investigation was started.
4. On the memorandum statement of accused, a piece of torn pant was seized, some articles were also seized from the appellant, and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed.
5. When the learned trial Court charged accused/appellant Durgesh alias Chhotu Raghavanshi for offence under Section 302 of IPC, he denied the charges.
6. After prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused/appellant Durgesh alias Chhotu Raghuvanshi did not admit the prosecution evidence and submitted that he is innocent but has not examined any witnesses.
7. The learned trial court convicted the appellant as mentioned above, against which this appeal is filed on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is also submitted that when the deceased was searched on the previous evening, nothing was found near the well, so how anything could be found on the next date near the well. Memorandum (Ex.P/20) was recorded after 7 days of the incident. Chain of circumstance is not proved against the appellant. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant seeks acquittal of the appellant from the charges leveled against him.
8. On the other hand, Ms. Shweta Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 4 CRA-2223-2025 General for the respondent/State submits that the judgment of trial Court is well reasoned. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and submits that the appeal should be dismissed.
9. We have perused the record and considered the arguments. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The law regarding appreciation of evidence in a case based on circumstantial evidence has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, in which it is held in a case of circumstantial evidence the case must be proved and may not be proved. There should be a clear motive. All the circumstances should be so collated to prove the guilt of the appellant and nobody else. In Para 153 it has been held 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.
(2) 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 v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made:
[SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 5 CRA-2223-2025 "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 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."
10. Therefore, in the light of the prosecution case as mentioned above and in light of above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding appreciation of circumstantial evidence, it is seen that as per the postmortem Doctor, Dr. S.K. Jain (PW/17), when he had examined the body of the deceased, he had found as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/35) that the deceased died due to asphyxia, on account of drowning, there was water in his lungs and stomach. This doctor has not mentioned injury on the body of the deceased and in cross-examination has admitted that it is possible that the deceased may have fallen into the Well, as he wanted to commit suicide, or even by accident.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 6 CRA-2223-2025
11. If we relate this evidence to the prosecution case then according to them, the deceased went to cut the grass behind his house but did not return back, therefore, the minimum requirement was that they should have searched the entire field, including the Well, which was situated in the field of the deceased and his family behind their house and it is nobody's case that the dead body was procured from some other place wherein he had already drowned and died and subsequently body was thrown into the well, which was situated in the field of the deceased and his family members. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was searched in the evening of 13th May and again in the morning of 14th May.
12. It is submitted by the prosecution that appellant pushed the deceased into the well as he was asking for return of his Rs. 1000/- which he had loaned to the appellant/accused, but there is no document to substantiate that deceased had loaned Rs. 1000/- to the appellant.
13. On the other hand, Praveen Yadav (PW/1) in Para 1 of the examination in chief stated that the deceased told him "अजुन ने मुझे बताया था क दग ु ष रघुवंशी से कुछ पैसे उधार लेना है फर काम शु कर दग ंू ा' Now this sentence does not reflect that the deceased wanted his loaned money back from the accused, on the other hand, normal meaning of this sentence is that he wanted some loan from the accused/appellant because if the deceased wanted his money back and if it was told by PW/1 (elder brother of the deceased), then the sentence would have been that "उधार वापस लेना है " and should not be "उधार लेना है ".
14. Praveen Yadav (PW/1) in Para 2, stated that on 13.05.2022 his Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 7 CRA-2223-2025 brother had returned home at about 11 to 11:30 PM, and he was going with the appellant/accused Durgesh alias Chhotu Raghuvanshi, and when asked, he said, "थोड़ा हवा खाकर आ रहा हू ं तुम लोग सो जाओ." Thereafter, in Para 3, it is stated that "दस ू रे दन 01.05.92 को" (seems to be a typing error regarding the date) at about 8AM they saw that 'Gamchha' and some articles were lying near the Well, and thereafter, by a 'Gal' (Hook), a search was made inside the Well and the body of the deceased Arjun Yadav was caught in 'Gal' (Hook), and that body of Arjun was pulled up." In Para 4, this witness stated that his brother had loaned Rs.1000/- to the appellant/accused Durgesh alias Chotu Raghuvanshi, which he was not returning, and when his brother (deceased) asked for returning the money, then he pushed him in the Well, his brother didn't know swimming. In cross-examination in Para 12, this witness admitted that transaction of Rs.1000/- never happened before him. He also admitted that when the body of the deceased Arjun Yadav was taken out from the well, at that time Rs.550/- was recovered and Rs.20 to 30 was kept near the Well and he also agreed that the business of Gupchup (water ball), can be easily done with the sum of Rs.550/-. In Para 16 this witness also admitted that near the Well there is a wall of only 6 inches, and anybody can fall into the well by mistake. In Para 18 he also admitted that the type of 'Gamchha' which was recovered is easily available to people. In Para 20 he stated that he never heard about the dispute between the appellant and the deceased and stated that they were childhood friends.
15. Santosh Kushwaha (PW/2) stated that he met deceased Arjun Yadav in the afternoon, he came to him and asked for 'Gutka' he gave him Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 8 CRA-2223-2025 Rs.100/-, thereafter deceased Arjun brought five 'Gutka', he (deceased) gave four 'Gutkas' to him and kept one 'Gutka' for himself and then went away. Next day, body of the deceased was found inside the Well.
16. Nitesh (PW/3) has stated that he saw the deceased and the appellant together. He had earlier also seen them together. Next day the body of the deceased was found inside the Well. In Para 7 this witness stated that, sometimes the deceased Arjun used to sell 'Gupchup' on 'Thela' (cart) and sometimes he would not do so. In Para 8 he stated that the appellant and deceased were very good friends.
17. Banti Yadav (PW/6) and Madhav Pal (PW/7) have been declared hostile by the prosecution regarding a loan of RS.1000/- by the deceased to the appellant.
18. Malti Yadav (PW/9) stated that the deceased Arjun had told her that appellant Durgesh had taken Rs.1000/- from him as a loan, and when he returns the same, then he will start doing the work, on 13th may, accused and deceased were together. This witness in cross-examination Para 5, this witness stated that regarding receiving Rs.1000/- from appellant Durgesh, this information was given by the deceased about a week ago. In Para 6, she stated that Arjun had been doing this work since childhood. Thereafter, he stopped doing this business, but for the last two years he again started doing this business, and he never told her when and where he loaned the amount to the appellant. In Para 12, this witness also stated that money was recovered from pant of the deceased.
19. Arvind Yadav (PW/12) stated that for the last 15 days or so, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 9 CRA-2223-2025 deceased, Arjun, had not been selling 'Gupchup' (water balls), and on asking, he had informed him that when Durgesh returns the amount of Rs.1000/-, then he will start selling 'Gupchup' (water balls). In Para 4 he stated that he suspected that appellant Durgesh pushed his brother in the Well on account of the money. In cross-examination (Para 12), this witness admitted that if after 11-11:30 PM at night the deceased had gone somewhere else, then he cannot say anything in this regard. The appellant and the deceased were best friends since childhood, they never quarreled. They were going to each other place also, and from the pocket of the deceased, Rs.510/- was also recovered at the time of the 'Shav' Panchnama. In cross- examination Para 15, he submitted that he only suspected that the appellant might have pushed Arjun into the Well.
20. Sanjay Kumar Soni (PW/13) in cross-examination, Para 8, has stated that he never heard about any dispute between the deceased and the appellant/accused, they were friends.
21. Abhishek Sahu (PW/15) in Para 2, stated that in the CCTV footage some persons are being seen going on the road, but their faces are not showing clearly. At the shop three people are seen entering, but the accused is not one of them.
22. Abhishek Mishra, constable (PW/16) in Para 2, stated that on the road many two-wheelers, four-wheelers, and buses are coming and going, but the faces of the people are not clear. In Para 4, he stated that a person is seen wearing a 'Bhagva Gamcha' but front portion of body is not seen. In Para 6 he stated that in another DVD, motorcycle No. MP28 MZ-1713 Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 10 CRA-2223-2025 license plate is seen, and two persons are sitting on the motorcycle but they are seen below the leg only.
23. Nitin Singh (PW/18) in cross-examination Para 6, admitted that there are no call details regarding accused Durgesh alias Chotu Raghuvanshi, and the call details that he has filed, do not mention the location either.
24. Pankaj Rai (PW/19) in Para 3, Sub-Inspector stated that on the basis of the memorandum of the accused (Ex.P/18) he had prepared the seizure memo (Ex.P/19) and from the custody of the accused, before the witnesses he has seized a pant (M.O.3), in which, a square part of pant near the thigh, was missing. In Para 20, the witness stated that after commission of offence, the accused ran away through wire fencing, while going through the wire fencing, his pant was torn, this information was received from accused. In cross-examination Para 32 this witness admitted that in the memorandum (Ex.P/18) there is mention of tearing of pant but not at the thigh, and neither there is mention of injury to the thigh. After Para 33 there is a note by the learned trial court that the D.V.D. recording show that police personnel is going along with the accused, a police person has caught hold of accused from behind by cloth, and the accused was searching in bushes. Thereafter accused made some indication, but in the video date and time are not reflected. In the video there is no recording of sound. In cross- examination Para 36, this witness denied that when caught in iron barbed wire, pant can't be torn in square shape, this witness admitted that at the place where the pant of the accused was torn at that place there was no injury on the body of the accused. He stated only a pant might have been stuck in Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 11 CRA-2223-2025 the wire.
25. Ranjeet Singh (PW/21) in Para 12 of cross-examination admitted that Rs.510/- was recovered from the pocket of the deceased Arjun Yadav.
26. Sonu Verma ( PW/22) is the Photographer of videography.
27. Dr. Harshwardhan Kudape (PW/23), medical officer, stated that he examined the accused on 21.05.2022 and found an abrasion on the wrist of the right hand and abrasions on the left leg ankle and on the thumb of the left leg. It is submitted that injury No. 1 on the right hand was 4 cm in size, injury No. 2 on the thumb of the left leg was 0.5x0.5 cm in size, and injury No.3 on the ankle of the left leg was 0.2 cm in size. All injuries were simple in nature and were caused before 72 hours. The medical report is exhibit P/68. In cross-examination he stated that he cannot say the duration of the injuries.
28. When evidence in this case is examined by this court we find that, as per the statements of the witness as narrated above, the deceased and the appellant were good friends. They never fought on any issues, even Rs.510/- was recovered from the pocket of the deceased when his body was taken out from the Well. The deceased was carrying on business of 'Gupchup' (water ball), but sometimes he used to sell water balls and sometimes he would not do so. Regarding the loan of Rs.1000/-, the statement of Praveen Yadav (PW/1) is contradictory as stated above, but if, for argument's sake, that contradiction is ignored, then there is no written document of loan and in the light of the evidence, when the deceased had money with him as recovered from his pant, therefore, this arguments do not appeal to us that the deceased Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 12 CRA-2223-2025 was worried and had stopped carrying on his business of 'Gupchup' (water ball) because he was in need of money.
29. Another point is that Investigation Officer (PW/19) Pankaj Rai took the accused on the spot, and regarding the search and investigation, a video recording was made, but as seen from his court statement note in Para 33 and 34, the video is not showing any date and time, and it is also admitted by the investigation officer that people were talking, but in court audio could not be heard. Whether this lapse was deliberate or accidental but it is in any case very damaging to the prosecution case because why the date and time is not reflected in video? Why was the audio recording either switched off at the time of videography or the video recording was tampered with, to delete the audio file? As stated above in either case, it is a big setback to the prosecution case. It is submitted that after pushing the deceased into the Well, the appellant ran away through the fenced barbed wire, and in the process his pant was caught in the wire; it was torn at the thigh level of the pant, but there is no injury on that part of the body. Normally, if this incident is to be believed, when the pant is entangled in the sharp wire and if it is torn also, then some injuries may be reasonably expected to be caused on that part of body, Ravi Yadav (PW/14), a so-called independent witness, has stated that on the memorandum statement of the accused (Ex.P/18) dated 20.05.2022 time 4:40 PM, police from the house of the accused recovered a yellow-colored pant (MO3), a portion of which was torn, and a black shirt (MO4), which was also torn. It is also submitted that the accused stated that the torn part of the pant is entangled with the wire, and a memorandum (Ex.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 13 CRA-2223-2025 P/20) dated 20.05.2022 time 05:45 PM, was made, and from the spot, the torn part of the pant (MO5) was recovered by the seizure memo (Ex. P/21). Ex. P/20 (Memorandum of cloth) is prepared by Pankaj Rai, Sub Inspector (PW/19), mentions that a square portion of pant was recovered, FSL Report (Ex. P/51) of the pant/piece of pant mentions that Part-B is part of pant A-2 but no opinion was sought and given whether it could be torn due to entanglement in barbed wire, this question was not asked in letter of S.P. (Ex. P/49), therefore this report can be ignored on the ground that an additional important question regarding the tearing of cloth in square shape whether it was possible was not asked. Therefore, this court has high doubt whether a person while going through the barbed wired fencing and for arguments shake his pant had entangled in the barbed wire. Then a square portion of pant would be torn and remain entangled in the barbed wire or fell down there, while the person wearing the pant could cross the wire, have no injury from the barbed wire on the body, and go away. This point was challenged to I.O. (PW/19) in Para 36 but was denied by I.O. (PW/19) Sub Inspector Pankaj Rai, learned trial Court without giving a clear legal finding that tearing of square shape cloth (part of pant) from pant of accused without injury was possible, on the contrary it has taken it as a circumstance against the appellant. Even video regarding recovery of seizure is highly suspicious as sound is mute and in recording date and time is not shown.
30. Therefore, in this circumstantial evidence case as mentioned above, the burden which is on prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt, all the circumstances against the appellant, but in this case charges Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 27-09-2025 14:38:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49271 14 CRA-2223-2025 against the appellant are not proved, as this court finds that chain of circumstances against the appellant is not complete.
31. Accordingly, we hold that in the present case the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances against the accused so as to hold him guilty for the death of deceased Arjun Yadav under Section 302 of I.P.C., as judgment of the trial Court in this behalf is not based on proper appreciation of facts and law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2025 passed in S.T. 65/2022 by learned Session Judge, Chhindwara.
32. As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 302 of IPC. Disposal of the case property would be as per Para 159 of the judgment of the trial Court.
33. If appellant is not required in any other case, he be released from the jail immediately. Let original record of the trial Court be sent back to the concerned Court.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
NRJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 27-09-2025
14:38:25