Bhaiyalal Rawat & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal

Learned counsel for the parties are heard on the question of admission.

2 The appeal is admitted for final hearing.

3 Learned counsel for the parties are also heard on I.A.No.1188/2026, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

4 Learned counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal of the aforesaid application.

5 I.A.No.1188/2026 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

6 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally heard.

7 This appeal is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 14.6.2025 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge-Deosar, District Singrauli in Sessions Trial No.114/2022 convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 & 201 of the I.P.C and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- & Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for six months & three months respectively with a further direction to run all the jail sentences concurrently.

8 Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bholanath Vishwakarma (PW-3) alongwith his brother Ishwaran Prasad Vishwakarma reached the Police Chowki and informed the Police that he was a resident of Village Obri Gurmatiya Tola. He has four sons and two daughters. His sons, namely, Gorelal Vishwakarma, Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma, and Shyamkartik Vishwakarma had partitioned their respective shares and were living separately. On 15.08.2022, his son Gorelal Vishwakarma had gone to water the paddy saplings but did not return home. The family members presumed that he might have slept near the place where the motor pump was installed. On 16.08.2022 at about 6:00 AM, one Gambheer Agariya, a resident of the village, came to their house and informed them that the dead body of Gorelal Vishwakarma was lying near the cricket field. Upon reaching the spot, the complainant found that the dead body of Gorelal Vishwakarma bore signs of strangulation. There was an injury on his throat, which was bleeding. He reported the matter at Police Chowki Tingudi where Merg No.011/2022 was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, Crime No.784/2022 was registered against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C and the matter was taken up for investigation. The Merg Intimation Report (Exhibit P/14) was registered against the unknown persons. The Spot Map (Exhibit P/16) indicates a Sendha Tree as the location from where the dead body of the deceased Gorelal Vishwakarma was recovered. The said land is stated to be owned by the Forest Department.

9 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The learned Trial Court in Paragraph No.39 of the impugned judgment has relied upon certain circumstances to hold that the chain of circumstantial evidence stood completed. However, the said chain is not complete in itself and does not conclusively establish the guilt of the appellants. Therefore, it is submitted that the conviction of the appellants, based solely on the alleged completion of the chain of circumstances, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

10 Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that insofar as the identification of Gamchha referred to as one of the incriminating circumstances at Serial No.3 of Paragraph No.39 of the impugned judgment is concerned, Banwarilal Vishwakarma (PW-16) after having said in his examination-in-chief that the Gamchha tied around the neck of the deceased, Gorelal Vishwakarma, belonged to the appellant Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma, admits during his cross-examination that the said Gamchha was shown to him earlier by the Police before he identified it. He further admitts that the dimensions of the Gamchha were not measured in his presence. He also admits that the deceased was his son-in-law and Rajkumari Vishwakarma is his daughter. It is, therefore, submitted that the circumstance relating to the identification of the Gamchha as belonging to the appellant Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma has not been satisfactorily established.

11 Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that a reading of the testimony of Rajnarayan Rawat (PW-4), the alleged last-seen witness, reveals several material contradictions, rendering his evidence unreliable. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstance of "last seen together" beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, in the absence of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

1 2 Learned Government Advocate for the State in his turn supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the present appellants.

13 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

1 4 Rajkumari (PW-1) states that Basanti Rawat used to threaten Gorelal Vishwakarma and further states that Basanti Rawat had killed Gorelal Vishwakarma. However, she states that she did not know what role, if any, was played by the appellant Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma. According to her, she and Gorelal Vishwakarma were together until about 5:00 PM, after which she returned home while Gorelal Vishwakarma remained in the field to water the crops. On 16.08.2022, she came to know about the death of Gorelal Vishwakarma. This witness was declared hostile. Her case diary statement (Exhibit P/1) was recorded on 18.08.2022. It is noteworthy to mention here that the Public Prosecutor did not exhibit the First Information Report on record.

15 In her cross-examination, Rajkumari (PW-1) admits that Basanti Rawat had never threatened Gorelal Vishwakarma in her presence. She further admits that it was Geeta, who had informed her about five days prior to the incident, that Basanti Rawat had threatened Gorelal Vishwakarma. However, she also admits that although she had met Geeta one or two days before the incident, Geeta did not inform her about any such threat during that meeting. The witness also admits that she had an illicit relationship with Chhotelal. She is the wife of the deceased Gorelal Vishwakarma. Although she denies the suggestion that there was an altercation between her and the deceased on account of her illicit relationship with Chhotelal, her admission regarding such relationship assumes significance as one of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

1 6 Geeta (PW-2) has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile. She denies her case diary statement (Exhibit P/2). She admits that Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma is her brother and Basanti Rawat is her sister-in-law.

1 7 Bholanath Vishwakarma (PW-3) after stating in his examination-in-chief that he had lodged the report and that the Gamchha recovered from the spot belonged to the appellant Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma admits in his cross-examination that 1–2 years prior to the incident, the accused persons had alleged that his family, particularly his wife, was practising black magic. He further admits that owing to the said dispute, a Panchayat was convened in the village. He also admits that there were strained relations between his family and the accused persons. Further, he admits that the First Information Report was initially registered against the unknown persons. He also admits that at the time of preparation of Exhibits P/3 and P/4, namely, the Naksha Mauka and the Panchayatnama, the Police had not informed him of the purpose for which his signatures were being obtained.

18 Rajnarayan Rawat (PW-4) is the prosecution's witness on the circumstance of "last seen together." He deposes that it was the rainy season and that he alongwith others were engaged in transplanting paddy saplings. While cultivating his field, he saw Basanti Rawat walking along the road. He further states that he saw Gorelal Vishwakarma proceeding towards the northern side of his house. However, he categorically states that he could not say where Basanti Rawat and Gorelal Vishwakarma had gone thereafter. He also deposes that in the evening, he had seen the appellant Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma carrying a Lathi. On the following morning, while going to answer the call of nature, he heard people saying that Gorelal Vishwakarma was killed and his body was thrown near the cricket ground. Thereafter, he went to the spot and saw the dead body of Gorelal Vishwakarma.

19 In his cross-examination, Rajnarayan Rawat (PW-4) admits that there was a gap of about half an hour between the time he had seen Basanti Rawat and the time he had seen Gorelal Vishwakarma. He further admits that as he was engaged in his agricultural work, he could not say as to who had passed through the road during that period. He states that the place towards the north where Gorelal Vishwakarma had gone was about 3-4 acres away from his house. He also admits that the route taken by Gorelal Vishwakarma was the usual pathway leading to his agricultural fields. He further admits that the appellant Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma was transplanting paddy saplings in his own field and that persons visiting their fields for irrigation ordinarily carry a Lathi. He also admits that he was examined by the Police at Police Chowki. Although he states that his case diary statement (Exhibit D/3) was recorded on 15.08.2022 but the document itself bears the date 28.08.2022.

20 Thus, it is evident that the case diary statement of Rajnarayan Rawat (PW-4) was recorded more than thirteen days after the incident. In his case diary statement (Exhibit D/3), this witness states that on 15.08.2022 at about 7:00 PM, he had seen Gorelal Vishwakarma proceeding towards the village and that Basanti Rawat was following him while talking on a mobile phone. He further states that about half an hour later, the appellant Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma also passed along the same route. The aforesaid version is inconsistent with his deposition before the Court wherein he admits that he had seen Basanti Rawat between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM.

21 Rajnarayan Rawat (PW-4) admits that Dadulal Rawat, the brother of appellant Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma, had lodged a report against his son, Rambabu, alleging theft of paddy. He also admits that owing to the intervention of a Minister and the Members of the Janpad Panchayat, his son was compelled to return the stolen paddy. The witness expresses ignorance regarding the allegation that Rajkumari (PW-1), the wife of the deceased Gorelal Vishwakarma, had an illicit relationship with Chhotelal, although Rajkumari (PW-1) herself admits the existence of such relationship in her testimony.

2 2 Ramlakhan (PW-5) has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile.

2 3 Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma (PW-6) states that the deceased Gorelal Vishwakarma was his elder brother. According to him, Gorelal Vishwakarma had gone to the fields to irrigate the crops but did not return throughout the night. On the following morning, they came to know about the death of Gorelal Vishwakarma. During his cross-examination, a suggestion was put to the witness that Chhotelal was having an illicit relationship with Rajkumari, the wife of the deceased and that after Gorelal Vishwakarma came to know about their intimacy, an altercation had taken place between them. The witness expresses ignorance regarding the said suggestion and further states that if Chhotelal and Rajkumari had any role in the incident, he could not say anything in that regard. The witness further admits that the accused persons used to allege that his mother practised black magic. He also admits that the aforesaid issue had become the bone of contention between the two families and that a Panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute.

24 Ghanshyam Vishwakarma (PW-7) is a witness to the memorandum statements (Exhibits P/6 and P/7) as well as the arrest memos (Exhibits P/8 and P/9). In his cross-examination, he expresses ignorance regarding the alleged illicit relationship between Chhotelal and the wife of the deceased Gorelal Vishwakarma. However, he admits that there was a dispute between the two families on account of allegations of practising black magic.

25 Jagdev Singh Gond (PW-8) deposes that he had seen the dead body of Gorelal Vishwakarma and had informed the family members about the same. His testimony is hearsay in nature as he states that he subsequently came to know that Gorelal Vishwakarma had been killed by appellant Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma. He further admits that he had heard about the alleged illicit relationship between Chhotelal and the wife of Gorelal Vishwakarma. He also admits that the information regarding the involvement of Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma had been conveyed to him by Mahakam Agariya. Thus, this witness is neither an eye-witness nor a witness having direct knowledge of the occurrence, and his testimony, insofar as it attributes the offence to the appellant, is purely hearsay.

26 Sanjay @ Babbu Biyar (PW-9) has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile.

27 Sumit Kumar Gupta (PW-10) is a witness to the identification of the Gamchha. However, the evidentiary value of such identification stands considerably weakened as Banwarilal Vishwakarma (PW-16), the identifying witness, admits in his cross-examination that the police had shown him the Gamchha before he identified it.

28 Dr.Saurabh Kushwaha (PW-11), who conducted the postmortem examination, opines that the cause of death of Gorelal Vishwakarma was strangulation and that the death was homicidal in nature. He further deposes that apart from the injury on the neck, there were no external injuries on any other part of the body of the deceased.

29 The Head Constable Ganesh Meena (PW-12) deposes that he had seized and sealed the Gamchha found tied around the neck of the deceased Gorelal Vishwakarma.

30 The Investigating Officer Nehru Singh Khandatey (PW-14) admits that the First Information Report was lodged against unknown persons. He further admits that at the time of lodging of the FIR, the complainant Bholanath Vishwakarma (PW-3) had not expressed any suspicion against the accused persons. He also admits that on 18.08.2022, he recorded the statement of Bholanath Vishwakarma (PW-3) wherein the complainant neither named the accused persons nor expressed any doubt regarding their involvement. The witness further admits that on the same day i.e. 18.08.2022, the accused persons were arrested.

31 Sanjay Dabar (PW-15) is the author of the Spot Map.

32 Banwarilal Vishwakarma (PW-16), the witness to the identification of the Gamchha, admits that the Police had shown him the Gamchha prior to its identification.

33 Sadan Kumar (PW-17), another witness to the seizure, admits that, on the basis of the label affixed on the sealed packet, he stated that the packet contained a Gamchha, although the packet was never opened or shown to him.

34 Gambheer Agariya (PW-19) admits that the wife of deceased Gorelal Vishwakarma is allegedly been taken as his own wife by Chhotelal.

35 The appellants have taken the plea of false implication on account of enmity. It is well settled that enmity is a double-edged sword, which may cut either way. In the present case, the prosecution witnesses themselves have admitted the existence of enmity between the parties on account of allegations relating to the suspected practice of black magic attributed to the wife of the complainant Bholanath Vishwakarma (PW-3).

36 Thus, in view of the substantial time gap in the case diary statement (Exhibit D/3) of Rajnarayan Rawat (PW-4) and the discrepancy between the time of the alleged “last seen” circumstance as stated in Court, which shows a gap of 2–3 hours, the evidence relating to the last seen circumstance cannot be said to be reliable. Accordingly, the first link in the chain of circumstances stands not satisfactorily proved by the prosecution.

37 Similarly, the circumstance relating to the identification of the Gamchha allegedly tied around the neck of the deceased and stated to belong to the appellant Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma has also not been conclusively established by the prosecution evidence. Thus, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances.

38 In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda versus State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, we are of the considered view that, since the chain of circumstances is not complete, the conviction of the appellants, based merely on conjectures and surmises, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

39 Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 14.06.2025 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge-Deosar, District Singrauli in Sessions Trial No.114/2022 is hereby set aside.

40 The appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

41 Let the record of learned Trial Court, if any, be transmitted back forthwith.