Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devlal Dhurve vs The State Of M.P. on 25 September, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48966
1 CRA-11115-2024
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 25th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11115 of 2024
DEVLAL DHURVE
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Yadav- Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shweta Yadav - Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State
Shri
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.
This appeal is filed by appellant Devlal Dhurve being aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baihar, District Balaghat, in S.T.No.120/2018 (State of M.P. through Police Station, Malajkhand, District - Balaghat, State of M.P. Vs. Devlal Dhurve and others), while acquitting the co-accused (Ranjan Parte) from the charges under Section 201 of IPC and learned trial Court has convicted the appellant Devlal Dhurve for offence under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and sentenced him as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 26-09-2025 12:05:28NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48966
2 CRA-11115-2024 Appellant Deepak Yadav Conviction Sentence Imprisonment in lieu of Section Act Imprisonment Fine fine 302 I.P.C. R.I. for life Rs.5,000/- R.I for 6 months 201 I.P.C. R.I. for 2 years Rs.2,000/- R.I for 1 month
2. The prosecution story, in brief is that Premlal of Village Nayatola Bhurrak on 12.11.2016 left his house for going to Baiher but did not return back after 2 -3 days, thereafter his family members began to search for him.
On 03.12.2016 in a Jangal near Village Keenia, a human skeleton was found and looking at the underwear, baniyain, pant, shirt, slipper and teeth of skeleton lying near the skeleton, Boharan Singh identified it as Premlal. Information of the same was given to the Police Station Pathari where 'zero merg' (Ex.P/1) was registered. Skeleton was examined in Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal, from where report was obtained that head of the deceased was broken due to assault, thereafter a FIR (Ex.P/15) bearing Crime No.189/2016 was registered against an unknown person at Police Station Malajkhand. Thereafter to ensure that the skeleton was that of the son of Boharan Singh, blood sample of mother (Kali Bai) and Brother (Budh Singh) of deceased (Premlal) were taken and sent for matching the DNA with the skeleton and from the DNA report, it was confirmed that skeleton is of deceased- Premlal.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 26-09-2025 12:05:28NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48966 3 CRA-11115-2024
3. During investigation, a family member of the deceased had suspicion that the accused persons had murdered the deceased Premlal. Therefore, on 28.04.2018, appellant Devlal Dhurve was taken into custody and was interrogated. He made a disclosure statement, on the basis of which a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and, on the basis of the memorandum, mobile phone of the deceased (Premlal) as well as a wooden 'Danda' were recovered. Seizure memo is exhibit P/12. FSL report regarding the seized article was obtained. The FSL report is Ex.P/30, which shows that the stones and items received near the skeleton contained human blood.
4. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. When charged under Section 302 and 201 of IPC, the accused denied the charges. After prosecution evidence, when confronted with the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied the prosecution evidence and submitted that he is innocent but did not produced any defence evidence.
5. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence, appeal has been filed on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was appellant Devlal Dhurve who murdered the deceased Premlal. Prosecution evidence is full of contradictions and omissions. It is not proved that the mobile recovered from the appellant is that of the deceased. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant seeks acquittal of the accused/appellant.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Sweta Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State submits that judgment of the trial court is Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 26-09-2025 12:05:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48966 4 CRA-11115-2024 well-founded and appellant should not be acquitted.
7. We have perused the record and considered the arguments. As stated above this case was started on recovery of skeleton of deceased Premlal. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence. As per seizure memo (Ex.P/10) three small stones have been recovered from the spot and in seizure memo, it is mentioned that they contained human blood and as per Exhibit P/30 there is human blood on these stones but this evidence in itself would not be sufficient to convict the accused/appellant. As per seizure memo (Ex.P/12) a 'Danda' has been seized from the accused but that has not been sent for chemical examination. As per memorandum of the accused (Ex.P/11), deceased was assaulted by stone and 'Danda' and the accused took out mobile from the pocket of the deceased (Premlal) but seized 'Danda' has not been sent for forensic examination. There is no documentary evidence on basis of which it can be held that the seized mobile belongs to the deceased (Premlal), in fact Call Details Report (CDR) (Ex.P/32) did not mention that the SIM was issued in the name of deceased (Premlal).
8. Boharan Singh (PW/1) father of the deceased (Premlal) has stated that his son used to go to Hyderabad to earn. He also stated that his son was in relationship with a woman. He used to go to his friend's house also. He stated when son Premlal did not return, we searched for him for 20 days and found his body on the 21st day. At the time of reporting the matter they did not have suspicion on any one. He also submitted that there is animosity between the family of the deceased and the appellant.
9. Buddh Sigh (PW/2) brother of the deceased (Premlal) in Para 11 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 26-09-2025 12:05:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48966 5 CRA-11115-2024 his cross-examination stated that while reporting the matter they did not raise doubt anyone. Even in the report they did not raise doubt on anyone.
10. Hemlal (PW/3) is brother of the deceased. Sadhu Singh Dhurve (PW/4) is witness. Kanahiya Sonvani (PW/5) is Kotwar of concerned village.
11. Phooljence Kerketta (PW/6) in Para 2 has stated that the mobile recovered from the appellant Devlal was earlier being used by deceased (Premlal), therefore, he could identify it, but in his cross-examination Para 4 he admitted that police did not ask for the bill of the mobile.
12. Agnu Singh Meravi (PW/8) in Para 6 stated that it is correct to say that Sudha Armo did not want to marry the deceased (Premlal). He further stated on his own that she wanted to study further.
13. Dr. Harish Masram (PW/12) stated in Para 6 of cross examination that he cannot definitely state on the basis of examination of the skeleton that the injury in head of the skeleton was antemortem.
14. Manim Toppo, Sub Inspector (PW/14) admitted in Para 9 of the cross-examination that he did not enquire about mobile location of the accused. He further admitted that in CDR report and article A-1 (Mobile), last digit of IMEI number are different. In Para 10 he further stated that he obtained information from the Telecom Company that in whose name Mobile Number 917693996201 was allotted then the Telecom Company replied that it was in the name of Premlal but if document of this information is not filed along with charge sheet then he cannot state the reason. He also did not obtain the receipt of the purchase of the mobile. He further admitted Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 26-09-2025 12:05:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48966 6 CRA-11115-2024 he did not get the SIM of the mobile of the deceased. This witness was subjected to further examination in Para 12 by court, in which court specifically asked him regarding the mobile phone customer identification form, information is neither available on record nor in the case diary, then the witness answered that he had made correspondence, it may be possible that information (form) was not received. Court also asked him that as per seizure memo Ex.P/12 (Mobile) IMEI-I number is 911364652908367 and IMEI-2 number is mentioned as 911364652908375 whereas in CDR (Ex.P/32) IMEI number is 911364652908370, therefore, in CDR report and seizure memo, IMEI number are different, then on what basis he can say that mobile phone belonged to the deceased (Premlal), then this witness replied CDR reports are generated online, the last digit of the IMEI number always appears as zero, the correct information can be given by mobile Telecom Company only.
15. In cross-examination, Para 13 Manik Toppo (PW/14) stated that the Mobile article A-1 seized from Devilal was not got identified by the family of deceased (Premlal).
16. When examined in the light of evidence available on record and the only reliable incriminating evidence, if proved by the prosecution, could have been recovery of the mobile has been discredited, even by the investigation officer himself. On the basis of the examination of this witness from Para 12 to Para 13, the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused is not proved and therefore we hold that learned trial Court has wrongly held that chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant is Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 26-09-2025 12:05:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48966 7 CRA-11115-2024 proved, so as to hold that it was only the accused/appellant and none else who caused death of the deceased (Premlal).
17. The law regarding circumstantial evidence has been laid down by the 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 relevant 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] "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."Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 26-09-2025 12:05:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48966 8 CRA-11115-2024 (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."
Same is the ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Gambhir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC Online 365.
18. Therefore, this court finds that the prosecution utterly failed to bring on record any reliable evidence on basis of which it can be held that all circumstance when put together makes a chain to hold that it was the appellant and no one else who murdered the deceased (Premlal), therefore, we hold that finding of the learned trial Court, in this regard is not based on proper appreciation of fact and law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2024.
19. As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
20. Disposal of the case property would be as per Para 27 of the judgment of the trial Court.
21. If appellant is not required in any other case, he be released from Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 26-09-2025 12:05:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48966 9 CRA-11115-2024 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: 26-09-2025
12:05:28