Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raja Urf Umakant Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727
1 CRA-495-2016
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 8 th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 495 of 2016
RAJA URF UMAKANT MARAVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Sahu - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 496 of 2016
RAJA URF UMAKANT MARAVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Sahu - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 557 of 2016
ASHOK UIKEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shakti Prakash Pandey - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Abhishek Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
CHOUKSEY
Signing time: 16-04-2026
11:06:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727
2 CRA-495-2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1337 of 2016
ASHOK UIKEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shakti Prakash Pandey - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Abhishek Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1984 of 2016
BHURA URF KALIRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Himanshu Tiwari - Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1986 of 2016
BHURA URF KALIRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Himanshu Tiwari - Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal These appeals originate from the judgment rendered by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in S.T.No.67/2015 and S.T.No.68/2015 on 02/02/2016 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants namely Ashok Uikey S/o Chote Lal, Bhura @ Kaliram S/o Nandusingh, Surender S/o Hiradas and Raja @ Umakant Maravi under Section 302, 148 r/w 149, 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code and Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 3 CRA-495-2016 sentenced them as under :-
Conviction u/s Imprisonment R.I. Amount In lieu of 120-B of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- RI for 1 year 148 of IPC RI for 3 years Rs.5000/- RI for 6 months 302/149 of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- RI for 1 year 201 of IPC RI for 7 years Rs.5000/- RI for 6 months All the sentences run concurrently.
2. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in S.T.No.68/2015 recorded finding of acquittal qua absconding accused Shivlal Parte S/o Mulan Parte.
3. Brief facts which give rise to these set of appeals are that on 25/12/2014 as per the prosecution story, two persons had visited house of Kaliram Malgam. According to PW-1 Sandhya, daughter of Kaliram, these two persons were Bhura @ Kaliram and Surendra. They had taken Kaliram in the name of performing certain rituals but when Kaliram did not return then report was lodged on 01/01/2015. It is a part of prosecution story that in Octorber 2014 one of the accused Raja @ Umakant had teased daughter of Kaliram for which a report was lodged at Police Station Mandla. FIR was lodged, crime was registered, Police had arrested Raja @ Umakant and in that matter Mangal Singh was a witness. After the incident of eve teasing, family members of Kaliram were getting threats to take back the case but they had not withdrawn the case.
4. On 25/12/2014 at about 07:00 PM when Kaliram was sitting at his house at that time Bhura @ Kaliram and Surendra had visited him on their motorcycle. Kaliram met and made them sit inside. Thereafter, they had taken Kaliram. It has also come on record that Mangal Singh was assisting Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727
4 CRA-495-2016 Kaliram in performance of Jharphuk and performance of other rituals.
5. Kaliram did not return in the night. When PW-1 Sandhya Malgam, daughter of Kaliram, called her brother Narayan Malgam (PW-4), who was working at Gujrat and informed him that Kaliram had not returned back. It is the prosecution case that Narayan Malgam returned from Gujrat and tried to search for Kaliram.
6. On 28/12/2014 Kotwar Ganesh Prasad Baghel had gone to graze his animals in Jagmandal Jangal where at a distance of 50 metres from Danitola Road he had found a dead body. He had given intimation to Police Station Ghughri. When merg was recorded so also Dehati Nalishi. Shav Panchayatnama of unknown dead body was prepared. Notices were issued to the witnesses.
7. On 28/12/2014, dead body of unknown person was identified as that of Mangal Singh. Postmortem was conducted. Since Mangal Singh had gone with Kaliram Malgam, therefore, family members of Kaliram searched for Kaliram in the nearby vicinity. According to prosecution witnesses, on search of Kaliram, his body was recovered on 01/01/2015 on the slopes of Dadargaon forest towards Dongermandla entangled in bushes. Body was recovered, intimation was given to Police Station Ghughri, Dehati merg was registered, Shav Panchayatnama was prepared and then separate FIR was registered in regard to death of Kaliram.
8. It is submitted that present is a case where none of the articles recovered from the appellants revealed any presence of human blood. There is no eye-witness account. Conviction is based only on theory of last seen in Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 5 CRA-495-2016 the hands of PW-1 Sandhya Malgam and PW-7 Sukrat Lal.
9. It is submitted that there are several loops holes besides delay in lodging FIR. No missing person report was ever lodged. Conduct of prosecution witnesses is doubtful. Especially when dead body of Mangal Singh, who is said to be an assistant of Kaliram, was recovered on 28/12/2014. This fact came to the knowledge of the relatives of Kaliram and they kept their search on and thereafter dead body of Kaliram was recovered on 01/01/2015. It has also come on record and admitted by PW-7 that in their community death related rituals are performed for a period of 3 days. PW-7 has also admitted that he had received an intimation in regard to death of Mangal Singh on 29/12/2014 and had participated in all the death related rituals of Mangal Singh.
10. Thus, it is pointed out that on 28/12/2014 and 29/12/2014 star prosecution witness Sukrat Lal (PW-7) had knowledge about death of Mangal Singh. He also had knowledge about the fact that Mangal Singh accompanied Kaliram yet he did not choose to disclose this fact that on 25/12/2014 when he had visited village Aamgaon then some four persons had met him and asked him about the address of Kaliram. He also did not disclose it till 05/01/2015 that those four persons had introduced themselves and he had recorded number of motorcycles of those person in his pocket diary. He also did not disclose the fact that he had guided them towards the house of Kaliram.
11. It is also submitted that despite the fact that Sandhya Malgam (PW-1) states that Bhura @ Kaliram and Surendra had visited her house and Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 6 CRA-495-2016 taken her father for pooja/Jhadphuk. She neither disclosed this fact to her brother Narayan at Gujrat over telephone or on his arrival in the village else the natural conduct of the Narayan would have been to look for these two persons namely Bhura @ Kaliram and Surendra. Even in the missing person report (Ex.P/46-C) there is no mention of names of these two persons. Besides this, in the missing person report (Ex.P/46-C), it is mentioned that after reading news on 29/12/2014 in the News Paper Narayan Prasad had gone to Police Station Ghughri on 30/12/2014 where Nohar Singh had identified Mangal Singh. This is contrary to the record inasmuch as postmortem of Mangal Singh was conducted on 28/12/2014 vide Ex.P/13 by Dr. Markam (PW-6) who had opined that cause of death was shock due to excessive hemorrhage from the left lung (vital organ). Thereafter according to the witness, postmortem was conducted on the same day. Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P/9) was prepared on 28/12/2014. Sukrat Lal (PW-7) admitted that police had buried Mangal Singh and he has identified Mangal Singh after seeing his photograph.
12. It is also submitted that when it was known in the village as it sought made out by the Public Prosecutor that Raja @ Umakant had eve teased Surekha daughter of Kaliram in the matter of which there was a police case against Raja @ Umakant and also that there were threats received by the family of Kaliram to withdraw cases against Raja, then the natural conduct of Narayan and that of the complainant party would have been to have informed the police immediately that these were threats by the Raja @ Umakant to withdraw their cases or to face dire consequences. That Bhura @ Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 7 CRA-495-2016 Kaliram and Surendra had visited the house of Kaliram and Kaliram had accompanied Bhura as well as Surendra was also required to be informed. Thus it is submitted that studied silence on the part of prosecution witness for such a long duration leaves no iota of doubt that prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances.
13. It is also submitted that there are missing links in the chain of circumstances in as much as PW-1 Sandhya Malgam stated that at about 09:00 AM she had received a phone call on mobile phone on her father. Thereafter, at about 12 O'clock also she had received a phone call. The call which she had received asking about her father had number beginning from 83 and ending with 83. The caller had asked to give a miss call as and when her father returns back. Sandhya also admitted that she had given a miss call on return of her father but it is pointed out that prosecution did not bother to either seize mobile phone of Kaliram Malgam or trace the call records as to who is the person whose phone number starting with digits 83 and ending with digit 83 gave call and was too eager to meet Kaliram, because that would have been a vital link to complete chain of circumstances.
14. Another important missing link is that though Sukrat (PW-7) stated that he had recorded number of two motorcycles on which four persons had travelled to village Aamgaon and had asked him about the address of Kaliram but admittedly Sukrat had not recorded the names of those persons in the said pocket diary who had admittedly given their names. Police personal did not bother to obtain details of those motorcycles to discover as to who are the owners of those motorcycles whose numbers Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 8 CRA-495-2016 were recorded in the pocket diary of Sukrat Lal (PW-7) so to connect present set of appellants with the said motorcycles.
15. Thus, it is pointed out that there are two important missing links apart from several glaring lapses on the part of the prosecution namely not collecting the details of the phone number from which phone was received on the mobile phone of Kaliram and on which call was made on return of Kaliram to his home on 25/12/2014.
16. It is also pointed out that though mobile phones of accused were seized by the I.O. but they were never subjected to verification of call details record to corroborate story of Sandhya Malgam (PW-1) nor their location was traced to find out as to whether any of the accused or all of the accused were present in the village Aamgaon on 25/12/2014 and thereafter at the place namely Dadargaon Dongermandla forest from where dead bodies of Kaliram and Mangal Singh were recovered.
17. It is also submitted that Sandhya Malgam (PW-1) had only identified two of the accused persons namely Bhura @ Kaliram and Surendra whereas as per Executive Magistrate Smt. Bhavna Malgam (PW-8), Sukrat Lal (PW-7) had identified Surendra, Bhura @ Kaliram and Ashok. Sandhya had not identified Ashok. None of the witnesses identified Raja @ Umakant Maravi.
18. The Test Identification Parade was carried out on 16/03/2015 i.e. after almost three months of incident and after more than two months of arrest of the accused persons i.e. on 10/01/2015.
19. It is also pointed out that neither Sandhya (PW-1) nor Sukrat Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 9 CRA-495-2016 (PW-7) ever gave any physical or special attributes of the accused whom they had seen in their 161 statements or in any report made to the police officers at the relevant point of time. Thus, when accused persons were regularly appearing before the Court, their judicial remand was obtained, there is no material to connect their memorandums with the recovery and recovered articles with the cause of death of Mangal Singh and Kaliram, chain of circumstances is not complete and, therefore present is a case where apparently appellants have been falsely implicated, especially in view of the statement of PW-1 Sandhya who has admitted in Para-46 that she had informed Narayan over telephone that Kaliram had gone along with Mangal Singh. This is an exaggeration because in her examination-in-chief, she has not stated that Kaliram had gone with Mangal Singh. She only stated that Kaliram was taken by Bhura and Surendra. But this admission is very important because if she knew that Kaliram was accompanied by Mangal Singh then on recovery of dead body of Mangal Singh on 28/12/2014, she was obelized to inform the police personal that she had seen her father going in the company of Bhura @ Kaliram and Surendra on 25/12/2014. If she would have informed the police then police would have been obelized to look for the dead body of Kaliram but from the conduct it appears that it was the villagers and family members who searched the dead body of Kaliram and no efforts were made by the police personal despite recovery of dead body of Mangal Singh.
20. At this stage, Shri Abhishek Singh, learned Government Advocate submits that whole case of the prosecution hinges on the evidence Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 10 CRA-495-2016 of last seen given by PW-1 and PW-7. It is also submitted that T.I.P. was carried out by PW-8 and mere delay in T.I.P. or certain lapses of T.I.P. are not sufficient to set aside the judgment of conviction.
21. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, Sandhya Malgam (PW-1) admitted that she was married in 2018. She studied up to B.A. Mangal Singh is her uncle in relation. In case of death of a family three days function is organized which is call teenpatri. Relatives and other members of the society are called in that function. She does not remember as to which of her relatives had gone to attend death related function of Mangal Singh. She admitted that in the madiya where pooja was performed by her father, Trishul is kept. Inpara-36, she admits that she cannot say as to whether her father Kaliram had gone to the house of Mangal Singh to call him or not. In para-37, she states that she had not seen her father being accompanied by Mangal. She admits that there are several persons in her village who professes Christianity. on 25 th December it was a major festival of Christian community. In para-38 she admits that before recovery of dead body of Mangal Singh her brothers Narayan and Narendra had reached Aamnala that means they reached Aamnala prior to 28/12/2014. This witness states that she cannot say as to whether any missing person report was lodged after recovery of dead body of Mangal Singh. Statement Ex.D/3 given by Sandhya (PW-1) is dated 30/12/2014 and another statement Ex.D/1 filed in S.T.No.67/2015 is different from what was given in another case on 30/12/2014.
22. She admits that Ex.D/3 is missing person investigation statement.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 11 CRA-495-2016 There are several contradictions in her case diary statement and court statement. She admitted that she had informed her brother Narayan that Kaliram had gone in company of Mangal Singh but no effort appears to have been made by Narayan to look for Kaliram in the house of Mangal Singh and ask family members of Mangal Singh as to whether Kaliram had gone in the company of Mangal Singh. This witness has admitted that several persons used to visit her house in relation to Jhadphuk. She also admitted that Sukrat never use to visit her house nor he had given any information. She admits in Para-47 of her cross-examination that after death of Mangal Singh, Sukrat had not come to her house. She stated that she does not remember that Sukrat was also looking for Kaliram along with Narendra on 25/12/2014.
23. PW-2 Surekha stated that Surendra Malgam is known to her. He has Kirana shop in the village. She stated that on 26/12/2014 Sandhya had informed her about the fact that two persons had visited her house. She had informed that her father did not return back, then father of Surekha namely Baliram and her brothers started looking for Kaliram and tried to contact him on his mobile phone but that phone was switched off. She also states that Kaliram accompanied Mangal Singh was informed to her by the family members of Mangal Singh. She admitted that she had not seen anything on 25th December nor heard anything about any incident of 25 th December. She admits that on next day of 25th December, her family members had gone in search of Kaliram. She admitted that the day on which her statement was recorded she knew that dead body of Mangal Singh was recovered. Her Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 12 CRA-495-2016 statement was recorded at her home. She admits that she had not lodged any complaint about any threat being given to her in regard to the case under Section 354 of IPC. In Para-15, PW-2 stated that Mandla police had not recorded any statement.
24. PW-3 Sanjay Malgam admitted in cross-examination that he had seen his father Kaliram, Mangal Singh and two other persons going on foot. He had not seen as to who were sitting on the motorcycle. This witness admits that he was inside his shop and had only heard noise of motorcycle on which he presumed that they had left. In para-12, this witness admits that on 25/12/2014 when he was at his shop at about 07:00 PM, his father came to his shop with a bag in his hand. In para-13 this witness admits that since he was inside the shop, he could not say as to with whom his father and uncle Mangal Singh had gone.
25. PW-4 Narayan Malgam admits in Para-12 that though his younger brother Sanjay had informed him that probably Mangal Singh had also accompanied Kaliram but he had not visited house of Mangal because his brother had not given any definite information that Mangal had accompanied his father. Contention of this witness that he had gone to Ghughri and had enquired about his father on way, is contrary to the evidence of PW-1 who stated that she knew that her father was accompanied with Mangal Singh and she had informed this fact to PW-4 Narayan. Thus, conduct of Narayan in not approaching house of Mangal Singh despite recovery of dead body of Mangal Singh on 28/12/2014 itself to enquire about the whereabout of his father is a doubtful conduct.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 13 CRA-495-2016
26. Dr. D.K. Markam (PW-6) had carried out the postmortem of Kaliram and gave opinion that he died because of asphyxia because of cutting of trachea. Death was homicidal in nature caused between 4 to 7 days. Similarly, Dr, Markam has opined that the cause of death of Mangal Singh was excessive bleeding from neck and left lung, resulted in shock, death had occurred between 2 to 4 days from postmortem. These postmortem were respectively conducted on 28/12/2014 and 01/01/2015.
27. Sukrat Lal Barkade (PW-7) is the star witness. In para-15 this witness states that after 25/12/2014 he had visited Aamnala and then on 05/01/2015. On 05/01/2015 he came to Aamnala to meet his uncle Mangal Singh. Thereafter, he states that till 05/01/2015 he had no intimation that Mangal Singh was murdered. When he reached his Mama's house on 05/01/2015 then after seeing the police he realized that four unknown persons had met him on 25/12/2014, number of their motorcycle was recorded in his pocket diary. He admits that he had not given any specific physical description of any of the person who had met him on 25/12/2014. Though this witness states that he had met them at about 06:00 PM on 25/12/2014 but says that it was not dark which is contrary to the fact. He states that on 05/01/2015 he came to know about the names of the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that accused after being caught were shown to him. In Para-24 this witness has stated that Ashok had asked address of Kaliram at 06:00 PM at Aamnala road. In para-26 contrary to his statement he admits that after 2-5 days he had already came to know of the fact that Mangal Singh died. Then he admits that he had visited Aamnala.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 14 CRA-495-2016 Thus, it is evident that this witness has wrongly stated in Para-15 that he had no information about death of Mangal Singh till 05/01/2015. This witness was partly declared hostile. In para-31 he admits that he was not knowing the address of Kaliram. When he states that he had heard that Kaliram was residing near health centre . He admits that he had never visited the house of Kaliram. He further states that he had not gone along with these unknown persons to the house of Kaliram. There is no evidence on record to corroborate the evidence of this witness that house of the Kaliram is near the Health Centre. This witness admits that he had not seen those four persons before that date. He admits that one of them was asking about the Kaliram, had not introduced himself. This is contrary to the statement recorded in examination-in-chief. He admits that he had not informed the police while giving case diary statement Ex.D/2 that Ashok had asked him about the address of Kaliram. This witness admits in Para-34 that in teenpatri program of Mangal Singh, his parents and he himself had participated. This means that in Para-15 he has wrongly stated that he had visited Aamnala on 05/01/2015 after 25/12/2014 because teenpatri program was conducted from 30/12/2014 to 01/01/2015. Therefore, onus was on this witness to have informed the police that he had seen four persons who were asking about the address of Kaliram and if he is given a chance to meet them then he will be able to identify them. In para-37 this witness has admitted that he does not know as to what were the differences between Raja and Maaru, Kaliram and Mangal Singh.
28. As mentioned by learned counsel for the appellants, there is no Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 15 CRA-495-2016 corroboration of the fact that motorcycles number which were given by Sukrat Lal (PW-7) belongs to the appellants or there is any connection with the appellants with those motorcycles.
29. Thus, when these facts are taken into consideration then first missing link is delay in identification. It is fatal to the case of prosecution. Arrest of accused persons was admittedly made on 10/01/2015. T.I.P. was carried out on 16/03/2015.
30. The Supreme Court in Hasib vs State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2 8 3 , has noted that whenever, there is delay in holding a T.I.P. the prosecution should explain it, and the absence of a reasonable explanation will distract the value of the test. Similarly in Mulla and another versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 508, in Para-45 it is noted that the T.I.P. soon after arrest eliminates the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the T.I.P.
31. In Shabad Pulla Reddy vs. State of A.P., AIR 1997 SC 3087, the Supreme Court has held that where the Test Identification Parade was held after about 3-4 months of arrest of the accused persons and no explanation was given for the inordinate delay, identification evidence of such T.I. Parade was held to be unreliable.
32. Thus, in light of the aforesaid judgments, Test Identification Parade held after more than 2 months of arrest of accused cannot be given a seal of approval. Especially, when there is no explanation from the prosecution witnesses for such delay.
33. Another missing link is that in the missing person report Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 16 CRA-495-2016 (Ex.P/46-C) Narayan (PW-4) has not mentioned that who were the two persons who had visited their house whereas their names have been given by PW-1 Sandhya. Thus, onus was on prosecution to have given names of the persons who had visited the house of Kaliram and had taken Kaliram along with him.
34. Another intriguing factor is that Sandhya (PW-1) and Narayan (PW-4) both admits that Mangal Singh is their relative. It has also come on record that its a small village of about 200 houses. Yet, Mangal Singh and Kaliram going missing being not known to the related witnesses is beyond comprehension. Even their conduct is arbitrary inasmuch as there is contradictory evidence of Mangal Singh being last seen in the company of Kaliram.
35. Another glaring illegality in conduct of investigation is that prosecution did not bother to connect the telephone numbers of the accused with the calls which were allegedly made on mobile phone of Kaliram as deposed by PW-1 Sandhya with starting digits of 83 and ending digits of
83. This coupled with not connecting any forensic evidence in the form of CDR and telephone mobile tower location causes dent to the credibility of the prosecution version.
36. The prosecution even failed to connect the number of motorcycles as were recorded by Sukrat (PW-7) with the accused persons. Sukrat (PW-7) conduct is also doubtful because on one hand he admits that he had participated along with his parents in teenpatri program of Mangal Singh at village Aamgaon, on the other hand, he stated that he had returned to village Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 17 CRA-495-2016 Aamgaon only on 05/01/2015.
37. Another glaring missing link is that Sukrat (PW-7) admitted that the only family known to him in Aamgaon is that of Mangal Singh. He had visited Aamgaon on 25/12/2014. Then there should have been some evidence from the family members of Mangal Singh to connect visit of Sukrat to Aamgaon on 25/12/2014 so to gives some credibility to his evidence of last seen.
38. When these facts are taken into consideration then in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Manoj alias Munna versus State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2858, where in Paras 26, 27 & 28 the Supreme Court referred to the judgments in case of Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251, Krishnan alias Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279, Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 and that in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715, to hold that conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. It is held that the evidence of last seen together is a weak evidence and conviction only on the basis of last seen together without their being any other corroborated evidence against the accused will not be sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 & 201 of IPC.
39. Similarly, prosecution has failed to connect Bhura @ Kaliram and Surendra with Raja against whom there was an allegation of eve teasing to show that Raja had hired them to eliminate Kaliram and Mangal Singh.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 18 CRA-495-2016
40. When these facts are taken into consideration and examined on the touch stone of law laid down by Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra (supra), wherein para 153, Supreme Court has noted 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: [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.
(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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2026 11:06:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27727 19 CRA-495-2016 probability the act must have been done by the accused.
41. Since these five golden principles have not been observed and the chain of circumstance is not complete, there is no conclusive proof of guilt of the appellants and therefore, benefit of doubt needs to be and is hereby extended in favour of the appellants. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction is set aside.
42. If appellants are not required in any other case, they be released forthwith.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
mc
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
CHOUKSEY
Signing time: 16-04-2026
11:06:02