NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

IN THE HIGH

AT JABALPUR

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

ON THE 13

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1893 of 2020

KRISHNA KUMAR RAJAK AND OTHERS

THE STATE OF

Appearance:

Ms. Renu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant no.1.

Shri Jayesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for

Shri Manas Mani Verma

behalf of Advocate General.

Per: Justice Vinay Saraf.

1. The appellants have preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by

the judgment dated 04.02.2020 delivered by the Special Judge

Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities

Mandla in Special

has convicted the appellants Krishna Kumar Rajak and Satyendra

Varkade under Section 302 read with Section 3

IPC and sentenced each of them

and RI for three years

and Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation, h

Judge acquitted co

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

1 C r.

COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

ON THE 13

th

OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1893 of 2020

KRISHNA KUMAR RAJAK AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

, learned counsel for the appellant no.1.

Jayesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for appellant no.2.

Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate appearing on

.

J U D G M E N T

The appellants have preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by

dated 04.02.2020 delivered by the Special Judge

Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities

Mandla in Special Case No.18/2017, whereby learned Special Judge

has convicted the appellants Krishna Kumar Rajak and Satyendra

arkade under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC

and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life

e years respectively and fine amount of Rs.10,000/

with default stipulation, however, learned S

cquitted co-accused Brajesh @ Ghoi Maravi from

r.A. No. 1893/2020

PRADESH

MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

appellant no.2.

appearing on

The appellants have preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by

dated 04.02.2020 delivered by the Special Judge,

Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

whereby learned Special Judge

has convicted the appellants Krishna Kumar Rajak and Satyendra

4 of the IPC, 201 of

to undergo imprisonment for life

of Rs.10,000/-

owever, learned Special

Maravi from all the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

charges and appellants were also acquitted from the charges

under Section 3(2)(5) of the Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste

(Prevention of Atrocities

2. Prosecution case in

(PW1), Village Kotwar of Village Keri

Niwas, District Mandla that dead body of a

forest of Village K

wild animals. Upon his information, Police went at the spot and

recovered the dead body of unknown lady on 21.11.2016 on 11:40

am and registered inquest intimation report Ex.P

of the Cr.P.C.

3. Upon registration of inquest report, the enquiry started and the po

officer prepared spot memo, seized the incrementing articles f

spotand forwarded the body for postmortem.

revealed that the deceased was murdered and resultantly Police

Niwas, District Mandla registered Crime No.218/2016 under

Sections 302, 201 of the IPC against unknown person and started

investigation. Upon enquiry t

Basant Soyam (PW

14.11.2016, however, no missing person report was lodged.

Soyam (PW10) informed that his daughter was missing

could not identified the body as his daughter,

identification, the

for DNA examination with the blood sample

and his wife. In

recovered from the forest

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

2 C r.and appellants were also acquitted from the charges

ction 3(2)(5) of the Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste

Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 376 (D) of I.P.C.

Prosecution case in brief is that on 21.11.2016, Simbhu Das Bairagi

Village Kotwar of Village Keriwah informed to the Police

trict Mandla that dead body of a young lady is lying in the

forest of Village Keriwah and several parts of the body were

wild animals. Upon his information, Police went at the spot and

recovered the dead body of unknown lady on 21.11.2016 on 11:40

am and registered inquest intimation report Ex.P-1 under Section 174

registration of inquest report, the enquiry started and the po

prepared spot memo, seized the incrementing articles f

and forwarded the body for postmortem. Post mortem report

revealed that the deceased was murdered and resultantly Police

Niwas, District Mandla registered Crime No.218/2016 under

Sections 302, 201 of the IPC against unknown person and started

Upon enquiry the Police came to know that daughter of

(PW-10) of Village Majhgao was missing since

owever, no missing person report was lodged.

informed that his daughter was missing however

tified the body as his daughter, and for the purpose of

the femur bone of right leg of the deceased was sent

for DNA examination with the blood samples of the Basant

and his wife. In DNA report, it was confirmed that

d from the forest of Keriwah was of the missing

r.A. No. 1893/2020 and appellants were also acquitted from the charges leveled

ction 3(2)(5) of the Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste

Das Bairagi

informed to the Police

lady is lying in the

h and several parts of the body were eaten by

wild animals. Upon his information, Police went at the spot and

recovered the dead body of unknown lady on 21.11.2016 on 11:40

1 under Section 174

registration of inquest report, the enquiry started and the police

prepared spot memo, seized the incrementing articles from the

Post mortem report

revealed that the deceased was murdered and resultantly Police

Niwas, District Mandla registered Crime No.218/2016 under

Sections 302, 201 of the IPC against unknown person and started

came to know that daughter of

of Village Majhgao was missing since

owever, no missing person report was lodged. Basant

however he

for the purpose of

right leg of the deceased was sent

asant Soyam

NA report, it was confirmed that the body

the missing daughter of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

Basant Soyam. During investigation

Investigating Officer that his daughter was using one Galaxy Star Pro

Black Mobile of

name. Thereafter, Special Investigating

CDR details of the mobile were obtained and from the examination

it was revealed that one Ram Charan Parte (PW11) was using the

said mobile phone. The

of Ramcharan Parte

phone from one Dilip Marko (PW

4. Upon enquiry, Dilip Marko revealed that he purchased the said

mobile from Krishna Kumar Rajak (appellant no.1)

sold the same to Ramcharan Parte

aforesaid information and examination of CDR

that after death of deceased

mobile phone of the deceased

during interrogation,

Satyendra (appellant no.2) he murdered

but she was in relation with some other boy

the burnt cloths of the deceased

and trouser allegedly

the time of incident w

5. Satyendra Varkade

deceased and her education certificate

possession with a

ladies purse was seized from co

photocopies of the mark

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

3 C r.Soyam. During investigation, Basant Soyam informed

fficer that his daughter was using one Galaxy Star Pro

of Samsung Company and the same was in her own

ame. Thereafter, Special Investigating Team was constituted and

CDR details of the mobile were obtained and from the examination

s revealed that one Ram Charan Parte (PW11) was using the

said mobile phone. The mobile phone was seized from the possession

Ramcharan Parte, who disclosed that he purchased the mobile

phone from one Dilip Marko (PW15).

Dilip Marko revealed that he purchased the said

mobile from Krishna Kumar Rajak (appellant no.1) at Rs.700/

o Ramcharan Parte for Rs.2000/-. On the basis of the

aforesaid information and examination of CDR, it came on record

that after death of deceased, appellant Krishna Kumar Raja

of the deceased. Thereafter, he was interrogated

rogation, he accepted that with the help of co

(appellant no.2) he murdered deceased to whom

but she was in relation with some other boy. Upon his information,

the burnt cloths of the deceased were seized by the police and s

and trouser allegedly used by the appellant, Krishna Kumar Rajak at

the time of incident were also seized from his possession.

arkade(appellant no.2) produced the photograph of the

deceased and her education certificate, which were seized f

ossession with a brown colored ladies purse. Another black colour

was seized from co-accused Brajesh along with the

of the mark sheet and certificate of the High School

r.A. No. 1893/2020 informed to the

fficer that his daughter was using one Galaxy Star Pro

Samsung Company and the same was in her own

Team was constituted and

CDR details of the mobile were obtained and from the examination,

s revealed that one Ram Charan Parte (PW11) was using the

the possession

who disclosed that he purchased the mobile

Dilip Marko revealed that he purchased the said

Rs.700/- and

. On the basis of the

, it came on record

Krishna Kumar Rajak used

interrogated and

he accepted that with the help of co-accused

whom he loved,

. Upon his information,

seized by the police and shirt

used by the appellant, Krishna Kumar Rajak at

produced the photograph of the

seized from his

. Another black colour

along with the

of the High School and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

Class IX mark sheet of the deceased. As the

Schedule Tribe, Section 3(2)(5) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enhanced. The

accused persons disclosed

murder, they committed rape with

Section 376 (D), 376(2)

6. After registration of the offence

after conclusion of investigation

19.07.2017 under Section 302, 201/

Penal Code and Section 3

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against the appellants and

co-accused, Brajesh Maravi in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Niwas, District Mandla

Special Court, SC

the charges under Sections 376

34, 201 of the IPC and 3

the appellant no.1 Krishna Kumar Rajak and under

302, 302 r/w 34 and 201 of the IPC against the appellant Satyendra

and co-accused Brajesh.

7. The accused persons denied the charges and demanded the trial

During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 36 wit

PW1 Simbhu Das

Kunwar Singh, PW5

Santosh Sahu, PW8 Nanhe

Basant Soyam, PW11 Ramcharan, PW12

Balram, PW14Jagdish, PW15 Dilip Marko

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

4 C r.sheet of the deceased. As the deceased belong

Schedule Tribe, Section 3(2)(5) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enhanced. The

accused persons disclosed in their memos that before committing

y committed rape with the deceased and therefore,

, 376(2) were also added in the case.

After registration of the offence, accused persons were arrested and

after conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on

017 under Section 302, 201/ 34, 376(D), 376(2) of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against the appellants and

Brajesh Maravi in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First

District Mandla, who committed the case to the

CST (PoA) Act, Mandla. The Special Court framed

the charges under Sections 376 (D), 302, in alternate 302 read with

201 of the IPC and 3(2)(5) of SC and ST (PoA) Act, 1989 against

the appellant no.1 Krishna Kumar Rajak and under Section

34 and 201 of the IPC against the appellant Satyendra

accused Brajesh.

The accused persons denied the charges and demanded the trial

e prosecution examined as many as 36 wit

Das Bairagi, PW2Sibbulal, PW3 Jamuna

, PW5 Radheshyam, PW6 Veer Singh Maravi

Sahu, PW8 Nanhe Lal Sahu, PW9 Lambu Maravi, PW10

Soyam, PW11 Ramcharan, PW12 Sanjay Bairagi, PW13

Jagdish, PW15 Dilip Marko, PW16 Manoj Kumar,

r.A. No. 1893/2020 deceased belonged to the

Schedule Tribe, Section 3(2)(5) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enhanced. The

that before committing

ceased and therefore,

accused persons were arrested and

sheet was filed on

of the Indian

of the Schedule Caste and Schedule

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against the appellants and

Brajesh Maravi in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First

who committed the case to the

Mandla. The Special Court framed

302, in alternate 302 read with

Act, 1989 against

Section 376 (D),

34 and 201 of the IPC against the appellant Satyendra

The accused persons denied the charges and demanded the trial.

e prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses,

al, PW3 Jamuna Bai, PW4

Radheshyam, PW6 Veer Singh Maravi, PW7

Maravi, PW10

anjay Bairagi, PW13

16 Manoj Kumar,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

PW17 Susheel, PW18 Geeta Bai

PW21 Brijesh Kumar Chaoudhari, PW22 Somnath

Thakur, PW24 Dr.

Pathak, PW27 Suresh, PW

Munna Singh Maravi

Nagvanshi, PW33

PW35 Pratap Singh and

8. Prosecution exhibit

were produced by

accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the

prosecution allegation

implicated in the case. T

their support.

9. Learned Special Judge after recording the evidence of the

prosecution witnesse

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. an

the parties, by judgment dated 04.02.2020

Brajesh Maravi from all the charges, appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak

from the charges

(POA) Act, 1989

charges under Section 376(D) of I.P.C.,

appellants for the offences punishable

Section 34 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced as stated herein above.

10. With the consent of counsel

heard for the purpose of final disposal of the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

5 C r.Susheel, PW18 Geeta Bai, PW19 Neema Bai, PW20 Soni L

jesh Kumar Chaoudhari, PW22 Somnath, PW 23 Abhishek

Dr. Manoj Chauhan, PW25 Akarsh Soni, PW

Pathak, PW27 Suresh, PW28 Arvind Singh, PW29 Ratan, PW

unna Singh Maravi, PW31 Dalsingh Damor, PW32 Sooraj

, PW33 Smt. Poorvi Tiwari, PW34 Ravindra Singh To

PW35 Pratap Singh and PW36 Kamlesh Pandram.

Prosecution exhibited 117 documents as P-1 to P-117 and 14 articles

were produced by the prosecution during trial. In the examination of

accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the

prosecution allegations and stated that they have been falsely

implicated in the case. The defense did not examine any witness in

Learned Special Judge after recording the evidence of the

witnesses and examination of the accused persons under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and providing the opportunity of hearing to

by judgment dated 04.02.2020 acquitted the co

esh Maravi from all the charges, appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak

from the charges punishable under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC & ST

1989 and 376(D) of I.P.C., appellant Satyendra from the

charges under Section 376(D) of I.P.C., however convicted the

appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with

Section 34 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced as stated herein above.

With the consent of counsel for the parties, final arguments were

heard for the purpose of final disposal of the appeal.

r.A. No. 1893/2020 PW20 Soni Lal,

, PW 23 Abhishek

Manoj Chauhan, PW25 Akarsh Soni, PW26 S.N.

Singh, PW29 Ratan, PW30

Damor, PW32 Sooraj

Poorvi Tiwari, PW34 Ravindra Singh Tomar,

and 14 articles

n the examination of

accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the

and stated that they have been falsely

he defense did not examine any witness in

Learned Special Judge after recording the evidence of the

accused persons under

the opportunity of hearing to

acquitted the co-accused

esh Maravi from all the charges, appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak

(2)(5) of the SC & ST

appellant Satyendra from the

however convicted the

302 read with

Section 34 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced as stated herein above.

for the parties, final arguments were

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

11. Ms. Renu Gupta, counsel

submits that there is no direct evidence available against the present

appellant and the prosecut

by cogent evidence to meet th

doubt. She further submits that learned Special Judge has convicted

the appellants relying upon the statement of

who deposed that the accused persons accepted

travelling to Jabalpur from Niwas, however, neither there was any

occasion to make

immediately informed to investigating agency

after a period of three months and four da

by the witness,

submits that extra judicial confession is neither admissible nor

credible and the

must meet the beyon

submits that learned

of last seen and therefore, the extra judicial confession is also not

believable.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant no.1

prosecution has tried to brought on record that the appel

Kumar purchased 2 nos.

Nanhelal and the wrapper of the blade was seized from the spot and

the deceased sustained i

Manoj Chouhan did not state

blade. She further submits that call details (CDR) produced by the

prosecution are not conclusive proof to prove that the appellant has

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

6 C r.Ms. Renu Gupta, counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant no.1

submits that there is no direct evidence available against the present

appellant and the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances

by cogent evidence to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable

doubt. She further submits that learned Special Judge has convicted

the appellants relying upon the statement of PW17 Susheel Maravi

hat the accused persons accepted their guilt during

to Jabalpur from Niwas, however, neither there was any

ke any extra judicial confession nor the same was

immediately informed to investigating agency by the witness

riod of three months and four day, the same was disclosed

which is not believable. Learned counsel further

submits that extra judicial confession is neither admissible nor

extra judicial confession should be volunteer and

beyond reasonable doubt since threshold. She further

that learned Special Judge has not believed upon the

of last seen and therefore, the extra judicial confession is also not

Learned counsel for the appellant no.1 further submits that

prosecution has tried to brought on record that the appellant Krishna

Kumar purchased 2 nos. Super Max Blade from the shop of PW12

Nanhelal and the wrapper of the blade was seized from the spot and

the deceased sustained incised wound on her neck, but

did not state that the said injury was caused by

blade. She further submits that call details (CDR) produced by the

prosecution are not conclusive proof to prove that the appellant has

r.A. No. 1893/2020 appellant no.1

submits that there is no direct evidence available against the present

ion has failed to prove the circumstances

beyond reasonable

doubt. She further submits that learned Special Judge has convicted

Susheel Maravi,

their guilt during

to Jabalpur from Niwas, however, neither there was any

any extra judicial confession nor the same was

by the witness and

the same was disclosed

which is not believable. Learned counsel further

submits that extra judicial confession is neither admissible nor

extra judicial confession should be volunteer and

ince threshold. She further

believed upon the theory

of last seen and therefore, the extra judicial confession is also not

further submits that

lant Krishna

Super Max Blade from the shop of PW12

Nanhelal and the wrapper of the blade was seized from the spot and

but PW24 Dr.

that the said injury was caused by such

blade. She further submits that call details (CDR) produced by the

prosecution are not conclusive proof to prove that the appellant has

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

committed the offence of murder, the mobile phone

seized from the possession of PW1

and half months and

was examined by the prosecution during trial. On the bas

CDR, it cannot be accepted that the appellant was involved in the

offence of murder. No weapon was seized from the possession of the

appellant. No blood stain

from the possession of the app

prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against

the appellant Krishna Kumar

without proper appreciation of the evidence

convicted the present appellant only on the

confession and recovery of mobile from the possession of the PW11

Ramcharan. She prays for setting aside the judgment

recorded by the

no.1, Krishna Kumar Rajak.

13. Shri Jayesh Singh

appellant no.2 Satyendra

to bring any connecting evidence on record against the appellant

Satyendra. The prose

the basis of the seizure memo and the statement

seizure memo, allegedly one brown color ladies purse was seized

containing the educational certificate

colored photograph of the deceased from the possession

appellant Satyendra. The said articles were allegedly seized after a

long period of the incident and seized from the residents of the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

7 C r.committed the offence of murder, the mobile phone of deceased

seized from the possession of PW11 Ramcharan after a period of two

months and no witness of the seizure memo of mobile phone

was examined by the prosecution during trial. On the bas

CDR, it cannot be accepted that the appellant was involved in the

offence of murder. No weapon was seized from the possession of the

appellant. No blood stain was found on the clothes allegedly seized

from the possession of the appellant. She submits that the

prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against

the appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak. However, learned Special Judge

without proper appreciation of the evidence available

convicted the present appellant only on the basis of the extra judicial

and recovery of mobile from the possession of the PW11

Ramcharan. She prays for setting aside the judgment and findings

recorded by the learned Special Judge and to acquit the appellant

Krishna Kumar Rajak.

Jayesh Singh Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellant no.2 Satyendra Varkade submits that the prosecution

y connecting evidence on record against the appellant

Satyendra. The prosecution has tried to connect Satyendra only

the basis of the seizure memo and the statement of PW17

allegedly one brown color ladies purse was seized

containing the educational certificates of deceased and passport size

graph of the deceased from the possession

appellant Satyendra. The said articles were allegedly seized after a

long period of the incident and seized from the residents of the

r.A. No. 1893/2020 of deceased was

fter a period of two

of mobile phone

was examined by the prosecution during trial. On the basis of the

CDR, it cannot be accepted that the appellant was involved in the

offence of murder. No weapon was seized from the possession of the

nd on the clothes allegedly seized

mits that the

prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against

. However, learned Special Judge

available on record

is of the extra judicial

and recovery of mobile from the possession of the PW11

and findings

acquit the appellant

Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the

submits that the prosecution failed

y connecting evidence on record against the appellant

Satyendra only on

PW17. By the

allegedly one brown color ladies purse was seized

of deceased and passport size

graph of the deceased from the possession of the

appellant Satyendra. The said articles were allegedly seized after a

long period of the incident and seized from the residents of the in-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

laws of the appellant. He submits that seiz

the prosecution by

not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to complete the chain

of circumstances to prove the offence again

Satyendra. He pray

judgment and conviction of senten

and to acquit him

14. Shri Manas Mani Verma, Governme

of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and

submits that the prosecution proved

completed the chain by producing the cogent and reliable evidence in

the case. He further submits that PW8 Nanhe

appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak purchased

Company and wrapper of the blade was found near the

The appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak was having the motive to

commit the offence of

deceased and he had

deposed the fact that Krishna Kumar

shop along with the deceased

themselves disclosed before him that they

murder. The extra judicial confession was

same was duly proved by PW17 and the learn

not committed any error in relying on extra Judicial Confession.

More so, mobile phone which was

later on used by the appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak

same to PW15 Dilip Marko for consideration

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

8 C r.of the appellant. He submits that seizure has not been proved by

secution by cogent evidence. The extra judicial confession is

not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to complete the chain

of circumstances to prove the offence against the appellant

Satyendra. He prays for allowing the appeal and setting aside the

and conviction of sentence against the appellant Satyendra

him from the charges.

as Mani Verma, Government Advocate appearing on behalf

of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and

submits that the prosecution proved the chain of evidence and

completed the chain by producing the cogent and reliable evidence in

the case. He further submits that PW8 Nanhe Lal proved t

appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak purchased 2 nos. blade of Super Max

Company and wrapper of the blade was found near the

The appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak was having the motive to

offence of murder as he was in one sided love with the

and he had doubt on her character. PW 17 Susheel Maravi

t that Krishna Kumar and Satyendra visi

along with the deceased and while travelling to Jabalpur

themselves disclosed before him that they have committed rape and

The extra judicial confession was volunteer and truthful. The

same was duly proved by PW17 and the learned Special Judge has

not committed any error in relying on extra Judicial Confession.

More so, mobile phone which was being used by the deceased wa

later on used by the appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak, who sold the

Dilip Marko for consideration of Rs.700/

r.A. No. 1893/2020 re has not been proved by

xtra judicial confession is

not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to complete the chain

t the appellant

for allowing the appeal and setting aside the

against the appellant Satyendra

Advocate appearing on behalf

of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and

the chain of evidence and

completed the chain by producing the cogent and reliable evidence in

the fact that

blade of Super Max

dead body.

The appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak was having the motive to

love with the

. PW 17 Susheel Maravi

and Satyendra visited at his

while travelling to Jabalpur they

committed rape and

volunteer and truthful. The

ed Special Judge has

not committed any error in relying on extra Judicial Confession.

used by the deceased was

, who sold the

Rs.700/- and Dilip

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

Marko sold the same to Ramcharan for

The mobile phone

This fact was duly proved by

(PW11) during trial.

deceased was used by appellant Krishna Kumar

and SIM issued in the name of

mobile phone of deceased after the incident

circumstances was

any error in relying on the confession of the appellant

dismissal of the appeal.

15. We perused the record of the trial Court and considered the

arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the p

16. From perusal of record, it appears that the Special Judge has

convicted the appellants on the basis of extra judicial confession

made by the appellants

Krishna Kumar purchased two number of super max blade on

14.11.2016 from the shop of Nanhe

mobile phone of the deceased after the incident by appellant Krishna

Kumar and later on sold the same to Dilip

it to Ramcharan Parte (PW

was seized by the Investigating Officer.

17. In the case in hand admittedly there is

Even as per the Special Judge, no weapon sei

of any of the appellant

on circumstantial evidence. We are conscious of the five golden

principles set up and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

9 C r.sold the same to Ramcharan for a consideration of Rs.2000/

The mobile phone was seized from the possession of Ramcharan.

his fact was duly proved by (PW15)Dilip Marko and

during trial. CDR report proved that mobile phone of

deceased was used by appellant Krishna Kumar Rajak after her death

issued in the name of Krishna Kumar was used in the

of deceased after the incident. He submits that chain of

as complete. The Special Judge has not committed

any error in relying on the confession of the appellants. H

dismissal of the appeal.

We perused the record of the trial Court and considered the

advanced by the learned counsels for the parties.

perusal of record, it appears that the Special Judge has

convicted the appellants on the basis of extra judicial confession

appellants before Sushil Maravi (PW-17),

Krishna Kumar purchased two number of super max blade on

14.11.2016 from the shop of Nanhe Lal Sahu (PW-8) and

mobile phone of the deceased after the incident by appellant Krishna

Kumar and later on sold the same to Dilip Marko (PW-15)

it to Ramcharan Parte (PW-11) and from whose possession, th

was seized by the Investigating Officer.

case in hand admittedly there is no direct evidence is available.

Even as per the Special Judge, no weapon seized from the possession

appellants and the entire case of the prosecution is r

on circumstantial evidence. We are conscious of the five golden

set up and repeatedly reiterated by Apex Court, which are

r.A. No. 1893/2020 consideration of Rs.2000/-.

was seized from the possession of Ramcharan.

and Ramcharan

mobile phone of

Rajak after her death

Kumar was used in the

He submits that chain of

complete. The Special Judge has not committed

He prays for

We perused the record of the trial Court and considered the

arties.

perusal of record, it appears that the Special Judge has

convicted the appellants on the basis of extra judicial confession

17), appellant

Krishna Kumar purchased two number of super max blade on

8) and use of

mobile phone of the deceased after the incident by appellant Krishna

15), who sold

possession, the same

no direct evidence is available.

zed from the possession

and the entire case of the prosecution is rests

on circumstantial evidence. We are conscious of the five golden

by Apex Court, which are

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

to be born in mind in case

Apex Court in Sharad

1984 (4) SCC 116

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following

conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused

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”

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

793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl L

observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused

merely may

distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’

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 ac

(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

the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must

have been done by the accused.

154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the

panchsheel of the proof of a case

18. Keeping in mind the afor

based on circumstantial evidence, we examined the case in hand and

from perusal of record, it appears that dead body of a young lady was

lying in the forest of village Keriwah,

were eaten by the wild animals and the body was not recogniz

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

10 C r.to be born in mind in cases involved in circumstantial evidence.

Sharad Bhirdichand Sardavs. State of Maharastra,

1984 (4) SCC 116, summarized the principles and observed as under:

A close analysis of this decision would show that the following

conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused

said to be fully established:

) 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

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

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.”

) 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,

) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be

proved, and

) 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.

These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the

panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

Keeping in mind the aforesaid above principles applicable in a case

circumstantial evidence, we examined the case in hand and

from perusal of record, it appears that dead body of a young lady was

rest of village Keriwah, and several parts of the body

eaten by the wild animals and the body was not recogniz

r.A. No. 1893/2020 circumstantial evidence.

vs. State of Maharastra,

, summarized the principles and observed as under:

A close analysis of this decision would show that the following

conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be

) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances

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

[(1973) 2 SCC

J 1783] where the

observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

must be and not

be guilty before a court can convict and the mental

is long and divides vague

) 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

cused is guilty,

) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be

) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any

for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of

the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must

These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the

based on circumstantial evidence.”

applicable in a case

circumstantial evidence, we examined the case in hand and

from perusal of record, it appears that dead body of a young lady was

and several parts of the body

eaten by the wild animals and the body was not recognizable.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

Sibbu Lal Chakrawarty (PW

young lady to Village Kotwar

reached to the spot and body was seen by several villagers including

Smt. Jamna Bai (PW

(PW-5). Shambhu Das Bairagi

reached at the spot, prepared the spot memo, inquest report was

registered under S

presence of witnesses and sent

foul smell was coming from the body. Most of the part

eaten by the wild animals. From examination of the body, one

lacerated would of

lacerated wound

was found and one incised wou

front and middle of the neck. There was fracture in the frontal and

occipital bone of right side of the head. In the

death was homicidal and caused due to head injuries caused by hard

and blunt object and in the opinion of the Do

4-7 days back.

19. It is not in dispute that till cremation of the body near mortuary room,

it could not be identified. Investigating Officer registered F.I.R. on

23.11.2016 vide Crime No.218/2016 against unknown person on the

basis of post mortem report and started investig

investigation received

Basant Soyam (PW

wife Geeta Bai (PW

photo of the recover

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

11 C r.Chakrawarty (PW-2) intimated of laying of a body of

young lady to Village Kotwar Shambhu Das Bairagi (PW

he spot and body was seen by several villagers including

Smt. Jamna Bai (PW-3), Kuwar Singh (PW-4) and Radheshaym

Shambhu Das Bairagi intimated to the Police, Police

reached at the spot, prepared the spot memo, inquest report was

registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Body was examined in the

presence of witnesses and sent for post mortem. During post mortem,

smell was coming from the body. Most of the parts were already

eaten by the wild animals. From examination of the body, one

of 2x1x1 inch on the right side of the head, another

of 2x1x1inch just about mastoid bone of

found and one incised wound 3x1x1/2 inch was found on

front and middle of the neck. There was fracture in the frontal and

occipital bone of right side of the head. In the opinion of the Doctor,

death was homicidal and caused due to head injuries caused by hard

and blunt object and in the opinion of the Doctor, death

It is not in dispute that till cremation of the body near mortuary room,

it could not be identified. Investigating Officer registered F.I.R. on

23.11.2016 vide Crime No.218/2016 against unknown person on the

post mortem report and started investigation and during

received information regarding missing of daughter of

Soyam (PW-10), however, Basant Soyam (PW-10)

wife Geeta Bai (PW-18) could not identify the body on the basis of

recovered body as the condition of the body was very

r.A. No. 1893/2020 ying of a body of

(PW-1), who

he spot and body was seen by several villagers including

and Radheshaym

intimated to the Police, Police

reached at the spot, prepared the spot memo, inquest report was

ection 174 of Cr.P.C. Body was examined in the

post mortem. During post mortem,

were already

eaten by the wild animals. From examination of the body, one

side of the head, another

bone of right side

3x1x1/2 inch was found on the

front and middle of the neck. There was fracture in the frontal and

opinion of the Doctor,

death was homicidal and caused due to head injuries caused by hard

was caused

It is not in dispute that till cremation of the body near mortuary room,

it could not be identified. Investigating Officer registered F.I.R. on

23.11.2016 vide Crime No.218/2016 against unknown person on the

ation and during

information regarding missing of daughter of

10) and his

on the basis of

as the condition of the body was very

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

bad and it was almost turned into a skeleton. However, for the

purpose of confo

deceased was referred to chemical examin

blood samples of

From DNA report (Ex.P/73A), it was confirmed that the body

recovered at the instance of information received by the Police

Station Niwas, District Mandal

Village Keriwah

biological daughter of

18).

20. The aforesaid evidences produced by the prosecution were

trustworthy and could not be rebutted by the defence during trial and

on the basis of aforesaid evidence, it was proved by the prosecution

before the trial Court that Seema (deceased) daughter of

Soyam (PW-10)

14.11.2016 and her body was recovered from the

Keriwah on 21.11.2016 and the cause of death was head injuries

caused by hard and blunt object before 4 to 7 days from the date of

the post mortem, which was carried on 21.11.2016.

21. As no direct evidence was avai

prosecution tried to

evidence. So far as the last seen evidence is con

unconclusive however

Satyendra along with a girl came to his field and later on went

towards forest of Vill

by the witness neither any effort

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

12 C r.bad and it was almost turned into a skeleton. However, for the

conformation, femur bone of the right thigh of the

was referred to chemical examiner for DNA test

samples of Basant Soyam (PW-10) and Geeta Bai (PW

From DNA report (Ex.P/73A), it was confirmed that the body

recovered at the instance of information received by the Police

, District Mandal on 14.11.2016 from the

Keriwah was of Seema Soyam (deceased) who was the

biological daughter of Basant Soyam(PW-10) and Geeta

The aforesaid evidences produced by the prosecution were

trustworthy and could not be rebutted by the defence during trial and

the basis of aforesaid evidence, it was proved by the prosecution

before the trial Court that Seema (deceased) daughter of

10) and Geeta Bai (PW-18) was missing from

14.11.2016 and her body was recovered from the forest of Village

on 21.11.2016 and the cause of death was head injuries

d and blunt object before 4 to 7 days from the date of

the post mortem, which was carried on 21.11.2016.

As no direct evidence was available with the prosecution, the

prosecution tried to prove the offence by adducing circumstantial

evidence. So far as the last seen evidence is concerned, same is

unconclusive however Jagdish (PW-14) stated that appellant

along with a girl came to his field and later on went

forest of Village Keriwah. That girl could not be identified

by the witness neither any efforts were made to identify the

r.A. No. 1893/2020 bad and it was almost turned into a skeleton. However, for the

right thigh of the

test with the

Bai (PW-18).

From DNA report (Ex.P/73A), it was confirmed that the body

recovered at the instance of information received by the Police

on 14.11.2016 from the forest of

Soyam (deceased) who was the

10) and Geeta Bai (PW-

The aforesaid evidences produced by the prosecution were reliable,

trustworthy and could not be rebutted by the defence during trial and

the basis of aforesaid evidence, it was proved by the prosecution

before the trial Court that Seema (deceased) daughter of Basant

was missing from

forest of Village

on 21.11.2016 and the cause of death was head injuries

d and blunt object before 4 to 7 days from the date of

lable with the prosecution, the

by adducing circumstantial

cerned, same is

14) stated that appellant

along with a girl came to his field and later on went

age Keriwah. That girl could not be identified

were made to identify the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

photograph of the deceased and

appellant Satyendra came to his field,

Jagdish (PW-14) is of no use. Similarly,

that in the year 2016, at the time of Dus

Kumar came to her

stayed for a period of two days. By th

could establish only one fact that deceased was known to appellant

Krishna Kumar,

be treated as last seen evidence. In this way, prosecution failed to

prove the last seen evidence in the case.

22. Several memorandums

and other Police Officers during investigat

confessional statement

the same are not admissible

of the Evidence A

memorandum, from open place, some piece

deceased and iron clip of sandal were seized at the instance of

appellant Krishna Kumar

the crime. Shirt and Trouser of

seized from his possession

human blood, the

spot memos were

Krishna Kumar. However, the same are also insignificant in light of

the fact that Investigating Officer had already aware of the spot from

where the articles were s

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

13 C r.photograph of the deceased and it was also not established that when

appellant Satyendra came to his field, therefore, the statement of

14) is of no use. Similarly, Neema Bai (PW

that in the year 2016, at the time of Dusshera, appellant Krishna

Kumar came to her home along with Seema (deceased

stayed for a period of two days. By this statement, the prosecution

only one fact that deceased was known to appellant

but the statement of Neema Bai (PW-19) could not

be treated as last seen evidence. In this way, prosecution failed to

prove the last seen evidence in the case.

Several memorandums were prepared by the Investigating Officer

and other Police Officers during investigation, wherein the

statements of accused persons were recorded. However,

not admissible in evidence in view of Section

Evidence Act and Section 162 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of

memorandum, from open place, some pieces of burnt cloth

deceased and iron clip of sandal were seized at the instance of

appellant Krishna Kumar, but the same could not be connect

t and Trouser of appellant Krishna Kumar w

seized from his possession, but in the absence of any evidence of

the seizure of shirt and trouser is insignificant. Some

s were prepared on the information given by appellant

Kumar. However, the same are also insignificant in light of

the fact that Investigating Officer had already aware of the spot from

where the articles were seized and body was recovered.

r.A. No. 1893/2020 it was also not established that when

statement of

(PW-19) stated

hera, appellant Krishna

deceased) and they

statement, the prosecution

only one fact that deceased was known to appellant

19) could not

be treated as last seen evidence. In this way, prosecution failed to

were prepared by the Investigating Officer

wherein the

of accused persons were recorded. However,

in evidence in view of Section 25 and 26

ct and Section 162 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of

of burnt clothes of the

deceased and iron clip of sandal were seized at the instance of

connected with

Krishna Kumar were also

but in the absence of any evidence of

seizure of shirt and trouser is insignificant. Some

prepared on the information given by appellant

Kumar. However, the same are also insignificant in light of

the fact that Investigating Officer had already aware of the spot from

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

23. Nanhe Lal Sahu (

were sold to appellant Krishna Kumar on 14.11.2016. As per

prosecution, wrapper of blade was recovered at the spot just 15 feet

away from the body and deceased

neck. But in the a

Doctor that the incised wou

the deceased could be caused by blade

the purpose of connecting the

offence of murder

remember that when and who

shop three months ago and secondly, only on the ground of seizure of

wrapper of blade, no presumption can be drawn that the injur

caused with the help of super max blade. The statement of Nanhe

Sahu (PW-8) is not trustworthy as he is admitted in his cross

examination that several persons used to purchas

from his shop daily.

24. The Special Judge has

ground of extra judicial confession, which were allegedly made by

the appellants to

appellants were travelling with him from Niwas to Jabalpur in a Bus,

on the way, they made

later on threatened

legal position in respect of extra judicial confession is no more

integra that an extra judicial confession must be volunteer, the

circumstances to made the confession should be probable and natural

as well as trustworthy.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

14 C r.Sahu (PW-8) stated that two number of super max blade

were sold to appellant Krishna Kumar on 14.11.2016. As per

prosecution, wrapper of blade was recovered at the spot just 15 feet

away from the body and deceased sustained one incised wou

ut in the absence of recovery of blade and any opinion of the

Doctor that the incised wound found on the front and middle

the deceased could be caused by blade, the same cannot be used for

the purpose of connecting the appellant Krishna Kumar with the

of murder. Firstly, it is not possible for any shopkeeper to

remember that when and who purchased super max blade from his

shop three months ago and secondly, only on the ground of seizure of

wrapper of blade, no presumption can be drawn that the injur

caused with the help of super max blade. The statement of Nanhe

is not trustworthy as he is admitted in his cross

that several persons used to purchase super max blade

from his shop daily.

The Special Judge has based the finding of conviction mainly

ground of extra judicial confession, which were allegedly made by

to Sushil Maravi (PW-17) who stated that when the

appellants were travelling with him from Niwas to Jabalpur in a Bus,

on the way, they made confession that they murdered Seema and

ed him for not to disclose this fact to anyone. The

legal position in respect of extra judicial confession is no more

that an extra judicial confession must be volunteer, the

to made the confession should be probable and natural

as well as trustworthy.

r.A. No. 1893/2020 stated that two number of super max blade

were sold to appellant Krishna Kumar on 14.11.2016. As per

prosecution, wrapper of blade was recovered at the spot just 15 feet

ncised wound at her

opinion of the

found on the front and middle neck of

he same cannot be used for

appellant Krishna Kumar with the

hopkeeper to

purchased super max blade from his

shop three months ago and secondly, only on the ground of seizure of

wrapper of blade, no presumption can be drawn that the injuries were

caused with the help of super max blade. The statement of Nanhe Lal

is not trustworthy as he is admitted in his cross

e super max blade

ainly on the

ground of extra judicial confession, which were allegedly made by

17) who stated that when the

appellants were travelling with him from Niwas to Jabalpur in a Bus,

confession that they murdered Seema and

him for not to disclose this fact to anyone. The

legal position in respect of extra judicial confession is no more res

that an extra judicial confession must be volunteer, the

to made the confession should be probable and natural

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

25. Supreme Court observed in respect to

confession in State Punjab

SCC 472 and held as under:

“15. Coming to the

same to be improbable and lacking in credence. According to Gurmej

Singh and Jabarjang Singh PWs, the confessing accused came to them

and blurted out confessions. They also requested these two witnesses t

produce them before the police. The resume of facts given above would

go to show that according to the prosecution case the murders of the

three deceased persons were committed in a most heinous manner and

under a veil of secrecy. Persons who commit such

precautions of secrecy are not normally likely to become garrulous

after the commission of the offence and acquire a sudden proneness to

blurt out what they were at pains to conceal. In any case it seems

rather odd that all the three

morning of May 9, 1972 should be seized almost at the same time by a

mood to make confession. It is significant that Surjit Singh, Charan

Kaur and Jito accused had no particular relationship or connection

with Gurmej Singh and Jabarjang Singh PWs. These two witnesses

were also not in such a position that the abovementioned three accused

would be willing to repose their confidence in them. If Surjit Singh,

Charan Kaur and Jito wanted to surrender themselves before t

police, we fail to understand as to why they should not themselves

surrender before the police and go instead to Gurmej Singh and

Jabarjang Singh and blurt out confessions before them. The evidence

of extra-judicial confession in the very nature of thin

of evidence. The evidence adduced in this respect in the present case

lacks plausibility and, as observed by the High Court, it does not

inspire confidence.

26. Supreme Court reiterate the same in

of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (6) SCC 403

“14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra

judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court,

upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends t

base a conviction on an extra

the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution

evidence. If, however, the extra

material discrepancies or inherent improbabilit

appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult

for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

15 C r.Supreme Court observed in respect to an any extra judicial

State Punjab vs. Bhajan Singh and others

and held as under:

Coming to the evidence of extra-judicial confessions, we find the

same to be improbable and lacking in credence. According to Gurmej

Singh and Jabarjang Singh PWs, the confessing accused came to them

and blurted out confessions. They also requested these two witnesses t

produce them before the police. The resume of facts given above would

go to show that according to the prosecution case the murders of the

three deceased persons were committed in a most heinous manner and

under a veil of secrecy. Persons who commit such murders after taking

precautions of secrecy are not normally likely to become garrulous

after the commission of the offence and acquire a sudden proneness to

blurt out what they were at pains to conceal. In any case it seems

rather odd that all the three accused who had not been arrested till the

morning of May 9, 1972 should be seized almost at the same time by a

mood to make confession. It is significant that Surjit Singh, Charan

Kaur and Jito accused had no particular relationship or connection

mej Singh and Jabarjang Singh PWs. These two witnesses

were also not in such a position that the abovementioned three accused

would be willing to repose their confidence in them. If Surjit Singh,

Kaur and Jito wanted to surrender themselves before t

police, we fail to understand as to why they should not themselves

surrender before the police and go instead to Gurmej Singh and

Jabarjang Singh and blurt out confessions before them. The evidence

judicial confession in the very nature of things is a weak piece

of evidence. The evidence adduced in this respect in the present case

lacks plausibility and, as observed by the High Court, it does not

inspire confidence.”

Supreme Court reiterate the same in Sahadevanand another

Nadu, 2012 (6) SCC 403, wherein it is held that :

It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra

judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court,

upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends t

base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that

the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution

evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from

material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not

appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult

for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such

r.A. No. 1893/2020 any extra judicial

vs. Bhajan Singh and others, 1975 (4)

judicial confessions, we find the

same to be improbable and lacking in credence. According to Gurmej

Singh and Jabarjang Singh PWs, the confessing accused came to them

and blurted out confessions. They also requested these two witnesses to

produce them before the police. The resume of facts given above would

go to show that according to the prosecution case the murders of the

three deceased persons were committed in a most heinous manner and

murders after taking

precautions of secrecy are not normally likely to become garrulous

after the commission of the offence and acquire a sudden proneness to

blurt out what they were at pains to conceal. In any case it seems

accused who had not been arrested till the

morning of May 9, 1972 should be seized almost at the same time by a

mood to make confession. It is significant that Surjit Singh, Charan

Kaur and Jito accused had no particular relationship or connection

mej Singh and Jabarjang Singh PWs. These two witnesses

were also not in such a position that the abovementioned three accused

would be willing to repose their confidence in them. If Surjit Singh,

Kaur and Jito wanted to surrender themselves before the

police, we fail to understand as to why they should not themselves

surrender before the police and go instead to Gurmej Singh and

Jabarjang Singh and blurt out confessions before them. The evidence

gs is a weak piece

of evidence. The evidence adduced in this respect in the present case

lacks plausibility and, as observed by the High Court, it does not

and another vs. State

, wherein it is held that :-

It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-

judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court,

upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to

judicial confession, it must ensure that

the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution

judicial confession suffers from

ies and does not

appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult

for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such

evidence out of consideration.

16. Upon a proper analysis of the above

Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make

an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of

forming the basis of conviction of an ac

guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where

the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra

alleged to have been made by the accused:

(i) The extra

be examined by the court with greater care and caution.

(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

(iii) It should inspire confidence.

(iv) An extra

evidentiary val

and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

(v) For an extra

should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent

improbabilities.

(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and

in accordance with law.

27. In Kalinga@ Kushal

Supreme Court held as under:

14. We may now proceed to delineate the issues that arise

consideration of this Court, as follows:

15. The conviction of the appellant is largely based on the extra

judicial confession allegedly made by him before PW 1. So far as an

extra-judicial confession is concerned, it is considered as a weak type

of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative link to lend

credibility to the other evidence

Chhattisgarh [Chandrapal v.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

16 C r.

circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such

evidence out of consideration.

x----x----x

Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this

Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make

judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of

forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would

guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where

the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession

alleged to have been made by the accused:

) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to

examined by the court with greater care and caution.

) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

) It should inspire confidence.

) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and

evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances

and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it

should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent

abilities.

) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and

in accordance with law.”

@ Kushalvs. State of Karnataka, 2024(4) SCC 735

Supreme Court held as under:-

We may now proceed to delineate the issues that arise

consideration of this Court, as follows:

The conviction of the appellant is largely based on the extra

judicial confession allegedly made by him before PW 1. So far as an

judicial confession is concerned, it is considered as a weak type

of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative link to lend

credibility to the other evidence on record. In Chandrapal

Chhattisgarh [Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 16 SCC

r.A. No. 1893/2020

circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such

referred judgments of this

Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make

judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of

cused. These precepts would

guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where

judicial confession

ce by itself. It has to

judicial confession attains greater credibility and

ue if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances

and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it

should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent

) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and

vs. State of Karnataka, 2024(4) SCC 735,

We may now proceed to delineate the issues that arise for the

The conviction of the appellant is largely based on the extra-

judicial confession allegedly made by him before PW 1. So far as an

judicial confession is concerned, it is considered as a weak type

of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative link to lend

Chandrapal v. State of

, (2023) 16 SCC

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

655 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 705] , this Court reiterated

value of an extra

OnLine SC para 11)

“11

the Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried

jointly for the same offe

such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons

is proved, the court may take into consideration such

confession as against such other person as well as against the

person who makes such confession. Howeve

consistently held that an extra

kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully

corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature,

ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should n

made only on the evidence of extra

in State of M.P.

Mallah

judicial confession made by the co

in evid

absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the

extra

loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based

on such extra

16. It is no more

accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other

evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it

shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of

arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent of

acceptability of an extra

trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the

circumstances in which it was given. The prosecution must establish

that a confession was indeed made by the accused, that it was

voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession were true.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

17 C r.

655 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 705] , this Court reiterated the evidentiary

value of an extra-judicial confession in the following words : (SCC

OnLine SC para 11)

11. At this juncture, it may be noted that as per Section 30 of

the Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried

jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of

such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons

is proved, the court may take into consideration such

confession as against such other person as well as against the

person who makes such confession. However, this court has

consistently held that an extra-judicial confession is a weak

kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully

corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature,

ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should n

made only on the evidence of extra-judicial confession. As held

State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah [State of M.P.

Mallah, (2005) 3 SCC 169 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 674] , the extra

judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted

in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In

absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the

extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the co

loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based

on such extra-judicial confession of the co-accused.”

It is no more res integra that an extra-judicial confession must be

accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other

evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it

not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of

arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent of

acceptability of an extra-judicial confession depends on the

trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the

umstances in which it was given. The prosecution must establish

that a confession was indeed made by the accused, that it was

voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession were true.

r.A. No. 1893/2020

the evidentiary

judicial confession in the following words : (SCC

. At this juncture, it may be noted that as per Section 30 of

the Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried

nce, and a confession made by one of

such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons

is proved, the court may take into consideration such

confession as against such other person as well as against the

r, this court has

judicial confession is a weak

kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully

corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature,

ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be

judicial confession. As held

State of M.P. v. Paltan

, (2005) 3 SCC 169 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 674] , the extra-

accused could be admitted

ence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In

absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the

judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused

loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based

accused.”

judicial confession must be

accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other

evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it

not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of

arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent of

judicial confession depends on the

trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the

umstances in which it was given. The prosecution must establish

that a confession was indeed made by the accused, that it was

voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession were true.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

The standard required for proving an extra

satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and these essential

ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The

standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the prosecution

necessarily rests on the extra

28. In the recent judgment delivered in

of Maharastra, 2025 (3) SCC 565

judicial confession

21. An extra

state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have

to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to

confession like any other evidence depends upon the reliability of the

witness to whom it is made and w

confession can be relied upon and conviction can be based thereon if

the evidence about the confession comes from a witness who appears

to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in

respect of whom

he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the

accused. The words spoken by the witness should be clear,

unambiguous and unmistakenly convey that the accused is the

perpetrator of t

which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the

witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra

judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a

conviction if it passes the test of credibility.

22. If the evidence relating to extra

credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and

acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. The

requirement of

invariable rule of law.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

18 C r.

The standard required for proving an extra-judicial confess

satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and these essential

ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The

standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the prosecution

necessarily rests on the extra-judicial confession.” In the recent judgment delivered in Ramu Appa Mahapatar

of Maharastra, 2025 (3) SCC 565considering the evidence of extra

judicial confession, Apex Court has held as under:-

An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and

state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have

to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to

confession like any other evidence depends upon the reliability of the

witness to whom it is made and who gives the evidence. Extra

confession can be relied upon and conviction can be based thereon if

the evidence about the confession comes from a witness who appears

to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in

respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that

he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the

accused. The words spoken by the witness should be clear,

unambiguous and unmistakenly convey that the accused is the

perpetrator of the crime and that nothing is omitted by the witness

which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the

witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra

judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a

viction if it passes the test of credibility.

If the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession is found

credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and

acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. The

requirement of corroboration is a matter of prudence and not an

invariable rule of law.

r.A. No. 1893/2020

judicial confession to the

satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and these essential

ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The

standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the prosecution

Mahapatar vs. State

considering the evidence of extra

judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit

state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have

to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to

confession like any other evidence depends upon the reliability of the

ho gives the evidence. Extra-judicial

confession can be relied upon and conviction can be based thereon if

the evidence about the confession comes from a witness who appears

to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in

nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that

he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the

accused. The words spoken by the witness should be clear,

unambiguous and unmistakenly convey that the accused is the

he crime and that nothing is omitted by the witness

which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the

witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-

judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a

judicial confession is found

credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and

acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. The

corroboration is a matter of prudence and not an

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

23. In Sansar Chand

Rajasthan, (2010) 10 SCC 604 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 79] , this Court

accepted the admissibility of extra

there is no absolute rule that an extra

the basis of a conviction although ordinarily an extra

confession should be corroborated by some other material.

24. Evidentiary value of an extra

examined in detail by this Court in

T.N. [Sahadevan

(Cri) 146] That was also a case where conviction was based on extra

judicial confession. This Court

circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove

the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards the

guilt of the accused. That apart, in a case of circumstantial evidence

where the prosec

court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and

caution. An extra

in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court. However, the

confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the

evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends upon the

veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.

25. This Court acknowledged that extra

piece of evidence. Wherever the court intends to base a conviction on

an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires

confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If the

extra-judicial confession suffers from material

inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent, such

evidence should not be considered. This Court held as follows :

(Sahadevan case

2010 SCC OnLineBom 1839] , SCC p. 410, para 14)

“14

extra

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

19 C r.

Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan [Sansar Chand

Rajasthan, (2010) 10 SCC 604 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 79] , this Court

accepted the admissibility of extra-judicial confession and held that

there is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be

the basis of a conviction although ordinarily an extra

confession should be corroborated by some other material.

Evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession was again

examined in detail by this Court in Sahadevan

Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC

(Cri) 146] That was also a case where conviction was based on extra

judicial confession. This Court held that in a case based on

circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove

the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards the

guilt of the accused. That apart, in a case of circumstantial evidence

where the prosecution relies upon an extra-judicial confession, the

court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and

caution. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made

in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court. However, the

onfession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the

evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends upon the

veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.

This Court acknowledged that extra-judicial confession is a wea

piece of evidence. Wherever the court intends to base a conviction on

judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires

confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If the

judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or

inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent, such

evidence should not be considered. This Court held as follows :

Sahadevan case [Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra

2010 SCC OnLineBom 1839] , SCC p. 410, para 14)

14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that

extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever

r.A. No. 1893/2020

Sansar Chand v. State of

, (2010) 10 SCC 604 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 79] , this Court

confession and held that

judicial confession can never be

the basis of a conviction although ordinarily an extra-judicial

confession should be corroborated by some other material.

udicial confession was again

Sahadevan v. State of

, (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC

(Cri) 146] That was also a case where conviction was based on extra-

held that in a case based on

circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove

the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards the

guilt of the accused. That apart, in a case of circumstantial evidence

judicial confession, the

court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and

judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made

in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court. However, the

onfession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the

evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends upon the

judicial confession is a weak

piece of evidence. Wherever the court intends to base a conviction on

judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires

confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If the

discrepancies or

inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent, such

evidence should not be considered. This Court held as follows :

State of Maharashtra,

. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that

judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution

evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra

confession

and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however,

the extra

discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear

to be cogent as per the pro

for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such

circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such

evidence out of consideration.”

26. Upon an indepth analysis of judicial precedents, th

in Sahadevan

3 SCC (Cri) 146] summed up the principles which would make an

extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of

forming the basis of conviction of an accused :

16)

“16

itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and

caution.

(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

(iii) It should inspire

(iv) An extra

evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent

circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution

evidence.

(v) For an extra

conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies

and inherent improbabilities.

(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other

fact and in accordance with law.”

29. In backdrop of the law laid down by the Apex Court

examined the extra judicial confession

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

20 C r.

the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution

evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra

confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence

and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however,

the extra-judicial confession suffers from material

discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear

to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult

for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such

circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such

evidence out of consideration.”

Upon an indepth analysis of judicial precedents, th

Sahadevan [Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012)

3 SCC (Cri) 146] summed up the principles which would make an

judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of

forming the basis of conviction of an accused : (SCC pp. 412

16. … (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by

itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and

caution.

) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

iii) It should inspire confidence.

iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and

evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent

circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution

evidence.

) For an extra-judicial confession to be the

conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies

and inherent improbabilities.

vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other

fact and in accordance with law.”

of the law laid down by the Apex Court

examined the extra judicial confession made by the appellants

r.A. No. 1893/2020

the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution

evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial

, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence

and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however,

judicial confession suffers from material

discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear

secution version, it may be difficult

for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such

circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such

Upon an indepth analysis of judicial precedents, this Court

, (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012)

3 SCC (Cri) 146] summed up the principles which would make an

judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of

(SCC pp. 412-13, para

judicial confession is a weak evidence by

itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and

) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

judicial confession attains greater credibility and

evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent

circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution

judicial confession to be the basis of

conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies

) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other

of the law laid down by the Apex Court, when we

appellants in the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

case in hand, the statement of

appear to be honest and trustworthy as there was no occasion for the

appellants to made such confession to Sushil Maravi in a Bus,

seems very odd that they themselves disclosed the fact of

commission of offence

damage the body of deceased with a object that the same

be identified by anyone. Pe

taking precaution of secrecy, are not likely to become glorious after

the commission of offence and mak

before any person. The witness disclosed this fact to the Police after

a period of 3 months and 4 days. Under these circumstances, the

Special Court has committed error in accepting the aforesaid extra

judicial confession, whi

incident nor there was any occasion to disclose this fact to anyone

and the same was

months and 4 days.

confession cannot

30. Mobile Phone of the deceased was seized from the possession of

Ramcharan Parte (P

Marko (PW-11) and Dilip

the same from appellant Krishna Kum

prosecution has proved th

received from mobile company

phone having

No.7049857950 and used the same till 17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

21 C r.case in hand, the statement of Sushil Maravi (PW-17) does not

appear to be honest and trustworthy as there was no occasion for the

appellants to made such confession to Sushil Maravi in a Bus,

seems very odd that they themselves disclosed the fact of

commission of offence, who after committing the offence

damage the body of deceased with a object that the same

be identified by anyone. Peoplewho committed such murder after

precaution of secrecy, are not likely to become glorious after

the commission of offence and make such confessional

before any person. The witness disclosed this fact to the Police after

a period of 3 months and 4 days. Under these circumstances, the

Special Court has committed error in accepting the aforesaid extra

judicial confession, which was neither made immediately after the

incident nor there was any occasion to disclose this fact to anyone

the same was reported to the Police after inordinate delay of 3

months and 4 days. We hold that the aforesaid extra judic

confession cannot be made the basis of conviction.

Mobile Phone of the deceased was seized from the possession of

Ramcharan Parte (PW-15), who purchased the same from Dilip

11) and Dilip Marko (PW-11) deposed that he purchased

the same from appellant Krishna Kumar.In the present case,

prosecution has proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt from

from mobile company that the deceased was using a mobile

having IMEI No.353125066992850 by using

No.7049857950 and used the same till 17:45:42 of 14.11.2016.

r.A. No. 1893/2020 17) does not

appear to be honest and trustworthy as there was no occasion for the

appellants to made such confession to Sushil Maravi in a Bus, and it

seems very odd that they themselves disclosed the fact of

the offence, tried to

damage the body of deceased with a object that the same should not

who committed such murder after

precaution of secrecy, are not likely to become glorious after

al statement

before any person. The witness disclosed this fact to the Police after

a period of 3 months and 4 days. Under these circumstances, the

Special Court has committed error in accepting the aforesaid extra

ch was neither made immediately after the

incident nor there was any occasion to disclose this fact to anyone

to the Police after inordinate delay of 3

ld that the aforesaid extra judicial

Mobile Phone of the deceased was seized from the possession of

who purchased the same from Dilip

11) deposed that he purchased

In the present case,

is fact beyond reasonable doubt from CDR

that the deceased was using a mobile

by using SIM

4.11.2016.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

31. From CDR, the prosecution could prove this fact that

01.12.2016, the same mobile set

No.353125066992850

inserted SIM No.

01.12.2016 at 18

continuously till he

thereafter Ramcharan

possession the mobi

on record to show

Krishna Kumar from the deceased. Prosecution could not produce

any evidence to connect

murder, however

used by one of the appellant

Court to consider such a situation in

State of Rajasthan, 1952 (2) SCC

as under:-

“7. The learned counsel for the State in support of the view

the High Court placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High

Court in Queen Empress

13 Mad 426] . The headnote of the Report says that : (ILR p.

427)recent and unexplained possession of the stolen prop

would be presumptive evidence against the prisoners on the charge of

robbery would similarly be evidence again

murder. This headnote, however, does not accurately represent the

decision given by the learned Judges. In the

of that case it was observed that in cases in which murder and robbery

are shown to form parts of one transaction, recent and unexplained

possession of the stolen property while it would be presumptive

evidence against a prisoner

be evidence against him on the charge of murder. Here, there is no

evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the robbery and murder formed

parts of one transaction. It is not even known at what time of the night

these events took place. It was only late next morning that it was

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

22 C r.From CDR, the prosecution could prove this fact that

01.12.2016, the same mobile set having IMEI

No.353125066992850was used by appellant Krishna Kumar

inserted SIM No. 9111722105 and switched on the mobile phone on

01.12.2016 at 18:54:21. Thereafter, he used the mobile phone

continuously till he sold the same to Dilip Marko (PW

thereafter Ramcharan Parte used the same mobile phone from whose

possession the mobile phone was seized. There is no direct evidence

on record to show that mobile phone was snatched by the appellant

Krishna Kumar from the deceased. Prosecution could not produce

any evidence to connect seizure of mobile with the offence of

owever could proved the fact that the stolen article was

he appellants. There was an occasion to the Supreme

Court to consider such a situation in Sanwat Khan and another

State of Rajasthan, 1952 (2) SCC 641 and the Supreme Court held

The learned counsel for the State in support of the view

the High Court placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High

Queen Empress v. Sami [Queen Empress v. Sami

13 Mad 426] . The headnote of the Report says that : (ILR p.

427)recent and unexplained possession of the stolen prop

would be presumptive evidence against the prisoners on the charge of

robbery would similarly be evidence against them on the charge of

This headnote, however, does not accurately represent the

decision given by the learned Judges. In the particular circumstances

of that case it was observed that in cases in which murder and robbery

are shown to form parts of one transaction, recent and unexplained

possession of the stolen property while it would be presumptive

evidence against a prisoner on the charge of robbery would similarly

be evidence against him on the charge of murder. Here, there is no

evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the robbery and murder formed

parts of one transaction. It is not even known at what time of the night

e events took place. It was only late next morning that it was

r.A. No. 1893/2020 From CDR, the prosecution could prove this fact that from

having IMEI

was used by appellant Krishna Kumar, who

on the mobile phone on

54:21. Thereafter, he used the mobile phone

(PW-15) and

used the same mobile phone from whose

direct evidence

that mobile phone was snatched by the appellant

Krishna Kumar from the deceased. Prosecution could not produce

seizure of mobile with the offence of

the fact that the stolen article was

s. There was an occasion to the Supreme

and another vs.

and the Supreme Court held

The learned counsel for the State in support of the view taken by

the High Court placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High

Sami, ILR (1890)

13 Mad 426] . The headnote of the Report says that : (ILR p.

427)recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property which

would be presumptive evidence against the prisoners on the charge of

st them on the charge of

This headnote, however, does not accurately represent the

particular circumstances

of that case it was observed that in cases in which murder and robbery

are shown to form parts of one transaction, recent and unexplained

possession of the stolen property while it would be presumptive

on the charge of robbery would similarly

be evidence against him on the charge of murder. Here, there is no

evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the robbery and murder formed

parts of one transaction. It is not even known at what time of the night

e events took place. It was only late next morning that it was

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

discovered that the Mahant and Ganpatia had been murdered and

looted.

8. In our judgment, Beaumont, C.J. and Sen, J.

in Emperor

458 : 1943 S

accused produced, shortly after the murder, ornaments which were on

the murdered person is not enough to justify the inference that the

accused must have committed the murder. There must be some furt

material to connect the accused with the murder in order to hold him

guilty of that offence.

9. Our attention was drawn to a number of decisions, which have been

summed up in a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court

in Shanker Prasad

: 1952 SCC OnLine All 189] , in some of which a presumption was

drawn of guilt from the circumstance of possession of stolen articles

soon after a murder. We have examined these cases and it appears to

us that each on

circumstances established in that particular case, and no general

proposition of law can be deduced from them. In our judgment, no

hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be

drawn from a certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence

against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and

although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder

must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe t

inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the

murderer. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof.

32. The proposition laid down in the matter of

reiterated in several cases by Apex Court and in

vs. Talevar and another

under:-

“18. Thus, the law on this issue can be summarised to the effect that

where the only evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen

properties, then although

and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe

to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen

property had committed the murder. It also depends on the nature of

the property so recovered, whether it was likely to pass readily from

hand to hand. Suspicion should not take the place of proof.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

23 C r.

discovered that the Mahant and Ganpatia had been murdered and

In our judgment, Beaumont, C.J. and Sen, J.

Emperor v. BhikaGobar [Emperor v. BhikaGobar, AIR 1943 Bom

458 : 1943 SCC OnLineBom 32] rightly held that the mere fact that an

accused produced, shortly after the murder, ornaments which were on

the murdered person is not enough to justify the inference that the

accused must have committed the murder. There must be some furt

material to connect the accused with the murder in order to hold him

guilty of that offence.

Our attention was drawn to a number of decisions, which have been

summed up in a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court

Shanker Prasad v. State [Shanker Prasad v. State, AIR 1952 All 776

: 1952 SCC OnLine All 189] , in some of which a presumption was

drawn of guilt from the circumstance of possession of stolen articles

soon after a murder. We have examined these cases and it appears to

us that each one of these decisions was given on the evidence and

circumstances established in that particular case, and no general

proposition of law can be deduced from them. In our judgment, no

fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be

rom a certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence

against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and

although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder

must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe t

inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the

murderer. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof.”

The proposition laid down in the matter of Sanwat Khan (supra)

several cases by Apex Court and in State of Rajasthan

and another, 2011 (11) SCC 666, Supreme Court held as

Thus, the law on this issue can be summarised to the effect that

where the only evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen

properties, then although the circumstances may indicate that the theft

and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe

to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen

property had committed the murder. It also depends on the nature of

perty so recovered, whether it was likely to pass readily from

hand to hand. Suspicion should not take the place of proof.

r.A. No. 1893/2020

discovered that the Mahant and Ganpatia had been murdered and

In our judgment, Beaumont, C.J. and Sen, J.

, AIR 1943 Bom

CC OnLineBom 32] rightly held that the mere fact that an

accused produced, shortly after the murder, ornaments which were on

the murdered person is not enough to justify the inference that the

accused must have committed the murder. There must be some further

material to connect the accused with the murder in order to hold him

Our attention was drawn to a number of decisions, which have been

summed up in a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court

, AIR 1952 All 776

: 1952 SCC OnLine All 189] , in some of which a presumption was

drawn of guilt from the circumstance of possession of stolen articles

soon after a murder. We have examined these cases and it appears to

e of these decisions was given on the evidence and

circumstances established in that particular case, and no general

proposition of law can be deduced from them. In our judgment, no

fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be

rom a certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence

against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and

although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder

must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the

inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the

(supra) was

State of Rajasthan

, Supreme Court held as

Thus, the law on this issue can be summarised to the effect that

where the only evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen

the circumstances may indicate that the theft

and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe

to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen

property had committed the murder. It also depends on the nature of

perty so recovered, whether it was likely to pass readily from

hand to hand. Suspicion should not take the place of proof.”

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

33. In an almost similar

deceased was seized from the possession of accused, the core

question before the Supreme Court was that what is the effect of

recovery of mobile phone

the same the Supreme Court has held in

M.P., 2022 (13) SCC 705

robbery, Supreme Court has held that,

evidence against an accused

property and although the circumstance

and murder must have been committed at

to draw the inference

was the murderer.

prove.”Relevant paras of the judgment are as under :

31. What is the effect of recovery of the mobile

that it belonged to the deceased? Section 114 of the Evidence Act with

Illustration (a) reads as follows:

“114.

may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely t

have happened, regard being had to the common course of

natural events, human conduct and public and private business,

in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

The Court may presume

(a) that a man who is in possession of

theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be

stolen, unless he can account for his possession;”

33. On the other hand, in

Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (1952) 2

one Mahant Ganesh Das, who was a wealthy person, used to live in a

temple of Shri Gopalji along with another person. Both of them were

found dead. The house had been ransacked and boxes and almirah

opened. It was not known at th

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

24 C r.similar circumstances, when the mobile phone of the

deceased was seized from the possession of accused, the core

ion before the Supreme Court was that what is the effect of

recovery of mobile phone which belongs to deceased and considering

the same the Supreme Court has held in Sonu @ Sunil vs. State of

M.P., 2022 (13) SCC 705, dealing with the case of murder and

robbery, Supreme Court has held that, “where however, the only

evidence against an accused persons is the recovery of stolen

property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft

and murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe

ence that the person in possession of stolen property

murderer. Suspicion cannot take the

Relevant paras of the judgment are as under :-

What is the effect of recovery of the mobile proceeding on the basis

that it belonged to the deceased? Section 114 of the Evidence Act with

Illustration (a) reads as follows:

114. Court may presume existence of certain facts

may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely t

have happened, regard being had to the common course of

natural events, human conduct and public and private business,

in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Illustrations

The Court may presume—

(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the

theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be

stolen, unless he can account for his possession;”

On the other hand, in Sanwat Khan v. State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan, (1952) 2 SCC 641 : AIR 1956 SC 54] ,

one Mahant Ganesh Das, who was a wealthy person, used to live in a

temple of Shri Gopalji along with another person. Both of them were

found dead. The house had been ransacked and boxes and almirah

opened. It was not known at the time who committed the offence.

r.A. No. 1893/2020 when the mobile phone of the

deceased was seized from the possession of accused, the core

ion before the Supreme Court was that what is the effect of

belongs to deceased and considering

Sonu @ Sunil vs. State of

the case of murder and

where however, the only

the recovery of stolen

may indicate that the theft

the same time, it is not safe

possession of stolen property

the place of

proceeding on the basis

that it belonged to the deceased? Section 114 of the Evidence Act with

Court may presume existence of certain facts.—The Court

may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to

have happened, regard being had to the common course of

natural events, human conduct and public and private business,

stolen goods soon after the

theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be

State of Rajasthan [Sanwat

SCC 641 : AIR 1956 SC 54] ,

one Mahant Ganesh Das, who was a wealthy person, used to live in a

temple of Shri Gopalji along with another person. Both of them were

found dead. The house had been ransacked and boxes and almirah

e time who committed the offence.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

Investigation resulted in arrest of the appellant, and on the same day,

he produced a gold

in the ground. Another accused produced a silver plate. The Court

found that there

circumstances which were rejected by the Sessions Judge and the

solitary circumstance was the recovery of the two articles. In these

circumstances, the Court held, inter alia, as follows : (SCC pp. 645

46, paras 6

“6. … Be that as it may, in the absence of any direct or

circumstantial evidence whatsoever, from the solitary

circumstance of the unexplained recovery of the two articles from

the houses of the two appellants the only inference that can be

raised in

Act is that they are either receivers of stolen property or were the

persons who committed the theft,

indicate that the theft and the murders took place at one and the

same

7. …

robbery and murder formed parts of one transaction. It is not

even known at what time of the night these events took place. It

was only late next

Mahant and Ganpatia had been murdered and looted.

8. … In our judgment, Beaumont, C.J., and Sen, J. in

Emperor

OnLine Bom 32]

produced shortly after the murder ornaments which were on the

murdered person is not enough to justify the inference that the

accused must have committed the murder.

9. … In our judgment no hard

to wha

circumstance.

accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although

the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder

must have been committed at th

the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property

was the murderer. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof.”

34. In backdrop of above law laid down by Supreme Court, only on the

basis of recovery of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

25 C r.

Investigation resulted in arrest of the appellant, and on the same day,

he produced a gold khanti from his bara, where it was found buried

in the ground. Another accused produced a silver plate. The Court

found that there was no direct evidence. There were certain

circumstances which were rejected by the Sessions Judge and the

solitary circumstance was the recovery of the two articles. In these

circumstances, the Court held, inter alia, as follows : (SCC pp. 645

46, paras 6-9)

“6. … Be that as it may, in the absence of any direct or

circumstantial evidence whatsoever, from the solitary

circumstance of the unexplained recovery of the two articles from

the houses of the two appellants the only inference that can be

raised in view of Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence

Act is that they are either receivers of stolen property or were the

persons who committed the theft, but it does not necessarily

indicate that the theft and the murders took place at one and the

same time.

* * *

7. … Here, there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the

robbery and murder formed parts of one transaction. It is not

even known at what time of the night these events took place. It

was only late next morning that it was discovered that the

Mahant and Ganpatia had been murdered and looted.

8. … In our judgment, Beaumont, C.J., and Sen, J. in

Emperor v. Bhika Gobar [Emperor v. Bhika Gobar

OnLine Bom 32], rightly held that the mere fact that

produced shortly after the murder ornaments which were on the

murdered person is not enough to justify the inference that the

accused must have committed the murder.

* * *

9. … In our judgment no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as

to what inference should be drawn from a certain

circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence against an

accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although

the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder

must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw

the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property

was the murderer. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof.”

(emphasis supplied)

of above law laid down by Supreme Court, only on the

very of a stolen article of deceased from the possession

r.A. No. 1893/2020

Investigation resulted in arrest of the appellant, and on the same day,

bara, where it was found buried

in the ground. Another accused produced a silver plate. The Court

was no direct evidence. There were certain

circumstances which were rejected by the Sessions Judge and the

solitary circumstance was the recovery of the two articles. In these

circumstances, the Court held, inter alia, as follows : (SCC pp. 645-

“6. … Be that as it may, in the absence of any direct or

circumstantial evidence whatsoever, from the solitary

circumstance of the unexplained recovery of the two articles from

the houses of the two appellants the only inference that can be

view of Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence

Act is that they are either receivers of stolen property or were the

but it does not necessarily

indicate that the theft and the murders took place at one and the

Here, there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the

robbery and murder formed parts of one transaction. It is not

even known at what time of the night these events took place. It

morning that it was discovered that the

Mahant and Ganpatia had been murdered and looted.

8. … In our judgment, Beaumont, C.J., and Sen, J. in —

Bhika Gobar, 1943 SCC

, rightly held that the mere fact that an accused

produced shortly after the murder ornaments which were on the

murdered person is not enough to justify the inference that the

fast rule can be laid down as

t inference should be drawn from a certain

Where, however, the only evidence against an

accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although

the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder

e same time, it is not safe to draw

the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property

was the murderer. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof.”

(emphasis supplied)

of above law laid down by Supreme Court, only on the

stolen article of deceased from the possession

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

of an accused, the accused cannot be held guilty of

of murder. The mobile phone was used by appellant Krishna Kumar

after several days of incident of murder and therefore, a

accused may be

punishable under Section 411 of IPC

itself is not sufficient to implicate the present appellant in the offence

of murder and as no charge was imposed under

the appellant can’t

Section 411 of IPC also.

35. In the above circumstance, if coupled with the recovery of mobile

phone of deceased from the possession of Ramcharan (PW

whom the same was

the same from appellant Krishna Kumar, at best, create a highly

suspicious situation, but beyond a strong suspicio

would follow in the absence of any other evidence or circumstance,

which could sugg

of murder as alleged. Even

the Evidence Act,

unless there is some evidence to show that the appellant was

involved in the offence of murder and the theft and murder occurred

at the same time

evidence is availa

36. From aforementioned discussion, it established that the prosecution

had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the

chain of circumstantial evidence is not so complete so as to lead to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

26 C r.of an accused, the accused cannot be held guilty of the commission

The mobile phone was used by appellant Krishna Kumar

after several days of incident of murder and therefore, a

accused may be held for guilty of possessing the stolen articles,

punishable under Section 411 of IPC. Recovery of mobile phone

itself is not sufficient to implicate the present appellant in the offence

as no charge was imposed under Section 411 of IPC,

the appellant can’t be punished for the offence punishable

Section 411 of IPC also.

In the above circumstance, if coupled with the recovery of mobile

phone of deceased from the possession of Ramcharan (PW

whom the same was sold by Dilip Marko (PW-11) who purchased

the same from appellant Krishna Kumar, at best, create a highly

suspicious situation, but beyond a strong suspicion, nothing

in the absence of any other evidence or circumstance,

which could suggest the involvement of the appellant in the offence

of murder as alleged. Even with the aid of presumption under

the Evidence Act, the charge of murder cannot be brought home

unless there is some evidence to show that the appellant was

involved in the offence of murder and the theft and murder occurred

time i.e. in the course of some transaction

evidence is available in the case in hand.

From aforementioned discussion, it established that the prosecution

had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the

chain of circumstantial evidence is not so complete so as to lead to

r.A. No. 1893/2020 commission

The mobile phone was used by appellant Krishna Kumar

after several days of incident of murder and therefore, at the most,

for guilty of possessing the stolen articles,

ecovery of mobile phone

itself is not sufficient to implicate the present appellant in the offence

Section 411 of IPC,

punishable under

In the above circumstance, if coupled with the recovery of mobile

phone of deceased from the possession of Ramcharan (PW-15) to

11) who purchased

the same from appellant Krishna Kumar, at best, create a highly

, nothing else

in the absence of any other evidence or circumstance,

est the involvement of the appellant in the offence

under 114 of

the charge of murder cannot be brought home

unless there is some evidence to show that the appellant was

involved in the offence of murder and the theft and murder occurred

i.e. in the course of some transaction. No such

From aforementioned discussion, it established that the prosecution

had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the

chain of circumstantial evidence is not so complete so as to lead to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC

only one irresistible con

committed the offence.

37. We are of the view that prosecution failed to prove the

against appellant

which could be brought by the prosecution on record against t

appellant Krishna Kumar

phone of the deceased

cannot be the basis

38. Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2020 passed by

Special Judge, Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, Mandla in Special Case No.18/2017,

aside and the appellant

charges framed under Section 302

39. Record of the trial Court be forwarded along with the copy of this

judgment. The appellant

required in any other case

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

JUDGE

Irfan

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5105

27 C r.only one irresistible conclusion that it is the accused alone who has

committed the offence.

We are of the view that prosecution failed to prove the

against appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The only evidence,

which could be brought by the prosecution on record against t

appellant Krishna Kumar is in respect of the recovery of mobile

phone of the deceased, and as discussed hereinabove, the same

the basis of conviction for the offence of murder.

he impugned judgment dated 04.02.2020 passed by

cial Judge, Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, Mandla in Special Case No.18/2017, is hereby set

aside and the appellants/accused persons are acquitted from the

under Section 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC.

rd of the trial Court be forwarded along with the copy of this

judgment. The appellants be released forthwith, if they are not

required in any other case.

AGARWAL) (VINAY SARAF)

JUDGE

r.A. No. 1893/2020 clusion that it is the accused alone who has

We are of the view that prosecution failed to prove the offence

beyond reasonable doubt. The only evidence,

which could be brought by the prosecution on record against the

recovery of mobile

s discussed hereinabove, the same

of conviction for the offence of murder.

he impugned judgment dated 04.02.2020 passed by

cial Judge, Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of

is hereby set

/accused persons are acquitted from the

and 201 of IPC.

rd of the trial Court be forwarded along with the copy of this

be released forthwith, if they are not

(VINAY SARAF)

JUDGE