Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaleem vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
1 CRA-463-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 463 of 2016
KALEEM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Reserved on : 28.01.2026
Pronounced on: 25.02.2026
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen
Heard on I.A. No.28207/2025, which is the ninth application under
Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Kaleem.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant after arguing at length and unable to
convince this Court prays for withdrawal of the aforesaid application.
3. I.A. No.28207/2025 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally
heard.
5. The appellant has filed this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
2 CRA-463-2016
Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 17.10.2015 passed by the Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Khandwa (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 13/2014, whereby he
has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with a default
stipulation.
6. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.11.2013 at about 7:40 p.m.,
Salim (son of Abbas) lodged an oral report at the concerned police station.
He stated that he had a monetary dispute with Kaleem (son of Abdul
Majeed), who had earlier abused and threatened him. On the same day at
about 7:00 p.m., Salim was informed by a village boy, Lokendra, that his
wife Najma was burning near the Delgaon-Dhangaon Road. He rushed to the
spot and extinguished the fire. Najma informed him that Kaleem had called
her there, abused her over the dispute, poured kerosene on her, and set her on
fire before fleeing on a motorcycle. She sustained severe burn injuries.
7. Based on his report (Exhibit P-3), Crime No. 185/2013 was registered
under Sections 294 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Najma was taken for
medical treatment but succumbed to her injuries on 07.11.2013. An inquest
(No. 171/2013) was conducted, and Section 302 IPC was subsequently
added.
8. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, the scene
of offence was inspected, a dying declaration was recorded, the accused was
arrested, the motorcycle allegedly used in the offence was seized, and the
call detail records of the deceased’s mobile phone were obtained. After
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
3 CRA-463-2016
completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused
under Sections 294, 307, and 302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court
of Sessions for trial. A charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the
accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. In his defence,
he examined three witnesses.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is illegal, erroneous and
contrary to the evidence on record. The appellant has been falsely implicated
due to prior monetary enmity. He submitted that the prosecution case rests
mainly on an alleged dying declaration, which is unreliable, contains
material inconsistencies, and was not recorded in accordance with law and
there is no proper certification of the deceased’s mental fitness at the time of
making the statement. It is further submitted that there are material
contradictions in the prosecution evidence, no independent witness supports
the case, the seizure of articles has not been duly proved, and the medical
evidence does not conclusively support the prosecution version. It is
therefore argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond
reasonable doubt, and the conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
is liable to be set aside.
10. Learned counsel for the State supported the trial court’s judgment and
submitted that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The
dying declaration was properly recorded, voluntary, and reliable, and clearly
implicates the appellant. The medical evidence corroborates the case, the FIR
was promptly lodged, and the motive arising from the monetary dispute is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
4 CRA-463-2016
established. Minor discrepancies in witness statements do not affect the
substance of the prosecution case. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be
dismissed and the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code be
upheld.
11. We have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the evidence
available on record.
12. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 16
witnesses.
13. Ibbu @ Imram (PW-2), the younger brother of the deceased Najma,
stated that at about 7:00 p.m., he was sitting at his neighbour Sakharam’s
house when an unknown motorcyclist informed him that someone was
burning on the road outside his house. He immediately ran to the spot and
saw the accused, Kaleem, about 200 meters away, leaving on a motorcycle.
He returned and asked Sakharam to bring a blanket and with the help of the
blanket, he extinguished the fire and then realized that the injured person was
his sister, Najma. Najma told him that there had been a dispute over money
and that Kaleem had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. He later
showed the police the place of occurrence (Exhibit P-1). He further deposed
that in his presence, the police seized a plastic can, burnt clothes, kerosene-
soaked soil, plain soil, and a matchbox from the spot, and prepared a seizure
panchnama (Exhibit P-2).
14. Saleem (PW-3), husband of the deceased Najma, stated that on the
relevant day, after returning from work and while sitting outside his house, a
village boy named Lokendra informed him that his wife was burning on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
5 CRA-463-2016
Delgaon Road. When he reached the spot, he saw that Imran had already
extinguished the fire with a gudri (blanket). His sister-in-law Rubina, was
also present there. He further deposed that Najma told him that Kaleem had
set her on fire over a monetary dispute of Rs. 2,000/-. He then lodged a
report (Ex. P-3) at Dhangaon Police Station. The police prepared a spot map
of the place where the body was found (Ex. P-4) and a Safina form of the
deceased (Ex. P-5). After the postmortem examination, the body was handed
over to him, and the receipt is Ex. P-6. He also identified the photographs
filed in the case as those of his wife. In paragraph 8 of his cross-
examination, this witness admitted that Ibu @ Imran was present at the scene
when he arrived, but Sakharam was not present.
15. Sakharam (PW-4) deposed that he knew the accused Kaleem, of the
same village. His son is Lokendra. On the day of the incident, he saw a
woman on fire about 20 feet from his house. Ibu, her brother, arrived,
identified her as his sister Najma, and covered her with a blanket to
extinguish the fire. He further stated that he did not know who set her on fire
or how it occurred. The prosecution declared him hostile. He deposed that the
police visited the spot the next morning and seized a green plastic can, burnt
clothes, plain soil, and a matchbox (Exhibit P-2). During cross-examination,
he admitted that Najma had a bad reputation in the village and was called
“Lady Police,” and frequently quarrelled with villagers and neighbours.
16. Lokendra (PW-12) stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident
occurred at about 7:00 p.m., while he was having dinner at his house. At that
time, a driver came and called him outside, informing him that someone was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
6 CRA-463-2016
on fire near the road. However, he did not go to the spot to see who was
burning or who had extinguished the fire. Later, he came to know that Najma
Bi of the village had been burnt. He did not support the prosecution’s case
and was therefore declared hostile.
17. Priyanka Mimroh (PW-16), Executive Magistrate, Sanawad, proceeded
to Government Hospital, Sanawad, on information from Dhangaon Police
Station, to record the dying declaration of Mrs. Najma on 06.11.2013. The
Medical Officer briefed her on Najma’s condition. Najma understood the
questions and stated that Kaleem Punjabi had set her on fire. She further
stated that Kaleem had been fighting with her for two or three days, extorting
money, and verbally abusing her. She further deposed that the dying
declaration was recorded in her own words.
18. Anguri Bi (PW-1), the mother of the deceased Najma, stated that the
police prepared the Safina form and the Naksha Panchayatnama of her
daughter’s dead body. She further stated that at the time of preparation,
witnesses Salim, Sultan, Aamin, and others were also present.
19. Irfan (PW-10) deposed that no vehicle was seized from Kaleem in his
presence. He further stated that the police did not arrest Kaleem in his
presence. However, the arrest memo, Exhibit P-14, bears his signature from
Part A to Part A. Thus, he has not supported the prosecution’s case and has
turned hostile.
20. Dr. Narendra Mandloi (PW-11) stated that on 06.11.2013, he was
posted as Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, Sanawad. On that
date, Head Constable G.A. Patel of Dhangaon Police Station brought the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
7 CRA-463-2016
injured Najma for medical examination. Upon examination, he observed the
following injuries:-
(i) The victim’s face, head, neck, chest, back, both thighs, legs, and
genitals were all burned. Her hair had been burned.
(ii) The body smelled of kerosene, and her clothes were stuck to her body
at the joints. Her skin had been burned and peeled off. After first aid, she was
immediately referred to M. Y. Hospital, Indore. The report is Exhibit P-16.
(iii) On 06.11.2013, the dying declaration of the deceased Najma was
recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Sanawad.
He stated that the deceased, Najma, was capable of giving a dying
declaration. Subsequently, the injured Najma Bai was re-examined by him,
and he found that she was also capable of giving a dying declaration.”
21. Mahesh Golkar (PW-7) was posted as Head Constable at the Khandwa
Police Station since 2013. He deposed that on 07.11.2013, at around 6:30
a.m., a ward boy named Salim Sufi from the District Hospital, Khandwa,
brought the inquest intimation. Salim submitted a written report of the death,
based on which Inquest No. 0171/13 was registered under Section 174 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (Exhibit P/10).
22. Laxman Singh (PW-8) was posted as Head Constable at Police Station
Dhangaon since 2012. He deposed that he received the diary of Merg No.
0/12 concerning the deceased, Najma, from the hospital, in which he had
also conducted Inquest No. 45/13 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C., at
Dhangaon Police Station, which is marked as Ex. P/11.
23. Gopichand (PW-6) was posted as Outpost In-Charge at M.H. Khandwa
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
8 CRA-463-2016
on 07.11.2013. On the same day, M.H. Khandwa received intimation from
Moghat Police Station regarding MERG No. 0171/13 under Section 174
Cr.P.C. for investigation. Gopichand conducted the Panchayatnama of the
deceased, Najma, and issued the postmortem form (Exhibit P/8). The body
was sent for postmortem under the supervision of Constable No. 430, Kadwa
Ram, to whom a duty certificate was issued.
24. Dr. Parvej Ahmed (PW-13) deposed that he conducted the post-mortem
examination of the deceased, Najma. He opined that the cause of death was
cardiac arrest, resulting from burns and burn shock. He further stated that the
death likely occurred 4 to 12 hours before the post-mortem examination. The
post-mortem report is marked as Exhibit P/8.
25. Kadwa Ram (PW-5) deposed that he was posted at the Khandwa
Hospital Outpost on 07.11.2013. He stated that on that date, a woman named
Najma had died. Her post-mortem examination was conducted, after which
he prepared a receipt for the body. He further stated that the body was
handed over to Salim, and the receipt of the same is marked as Ex. P/6.
26. Bhagwan (PW-9) was posted as Inspector at Dhangaon Police Station
since 2013. He stated that he submitted the seized articles to Sagar FSL on
28/11/2013 in case No. 185/13 and received a receipt, marked as Ex. P/12,
which he later filed at Dhangaon Police Station. In cross-examination, he
admitted that the articles were sealed and he did not know their contents.
27. Sheikh Manzoor (PW-14), Assistant Computer Reader at Mundi Police
Station, deposed that on 08.11.2013, the Station House Officer, Dhangaon,
requested the call details of mobile number 8719878543 from 01.11.2013 to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
9 CRA-463-2016
07.11.2013 (Ex.P.18). On the Sub-Divisional Officer’s instructions, he
obtained the details from Idea Company, which were sent to his officer, R.K.
Puri. The call details (Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.22) were then forwarded to the Station
House Officer, Dhangaon (Ex.P.23). He admitted during cross-examination
that he did not know the subscriber of the number.
28. Jitendra Bhaskar (PW-15) deposed that he was posted as Inspector at
Police Station Dhangaon on 06.11.2013. On that day, Salim Khan lodged
FIR No. 185/13 (Ex.P/3) against the accused Kaleem under Sections 307 and
294 IPC for setting his wife, Najma B, on fire. The victim was sent to
Government Hospital, Sanawad for medical examination, and statements of
the complainant, the victim, and witnesses were recorded. On 07.11.2013,
the spot was inspected, a spot map prepared, and items including a kerosene
can, half-burnt cloth, soil with kerosene, and a matchbox were seized
(Ex.P/2). The accused was arrested (Ex.P/14), and his motorcycle was seized
(Seizure Report No. 13). The inquest was conducted on 08.11.2013
(Ex.P/24), mobile call details obtained (Ex.P/8), and all material was sent to
FSL Sagar (Ex.P/28) with reports received as Ex.P/29 and Ex.P/30.
Following the victim’s death, the offense was upgraded to Section 302 IPC,
and challan proceedings were filed.
29. If the statements of the prosecution witnesses presented are analyzed in
this manner, it becomes clear that at the time when the accused poured
kerosene on the deceased Najma and set her on fire, there was no eyewitness
present at the spot. An unknown person informed the deceased’s brother,
Ibbu alias Imran (PW-2), that someone was burning near the road; then Ibbu
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
10 CRA-463-2016
alias Imran (PW-2) reached the spot and, after asking Sakharam (PW-4) for a
quilt, extinguished the fire with the quilt and found that the said woman was
his sister Najma. Najma told Ibbu alias Imran (PW-2) that the accused
Kaleem had poured kerosene over her and set her on fire due to a dispute
over money. The deceased Najma’s husband, Salim (PW-3), also reached the
spot on the basis of information given by Lokendra, and by that time the fire
had already been put out by Imran. The deceased Najma also told her
husband, Salim (PW-3), that it was the accused Kaleem who had set her on
fire, and she further stated that the accused Kaleem had set her on fire by
pouring kerosene due to a dispute of two thousand rupees. From the
statement of Dr. NarendraMandloi (PW-11), it is proved that the deceased
Najma was brought in a burnt condition to the Government Hospital,
Sanawad, and that on 06.11.2013 her dying declaration was recorded by the
Executive Magistrate, Sanawad. This witness’s statement also proves that the
deceased was in a condition to give a statement. Similarly, from the
statement of Priyanka Mimroh, Executive Magistrate (PW-16), it is proved
that the deceased Najma stated that Kaleem Punjabi had set her on fire; i.e.,
this witness recorded the deceased’s dying declaration in writing.
30. Thus, from the statements of the above witnesses, it is proved that
Najma immediately after the incident on the date of occurrence itself, stated
that the accused Kaleem had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire due
to a monetary dispute. In the cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing
emerged on the basis of which their statements could be disbelieved. Here it
is also necessary to mention that on the date of the incident, i.e. 06.11.2013
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
11 CRA-463-2016
itself, the First Information Report (Exhibit P-3) was recorded, and it also
contains the fact that the accused Kaleem set her on fire due to a transaction
of two thousand rupees. Therefore, there is no basis to disbelieve the dying
declaration (Exhibit P-16). Hence, where the dying declaration is reliable,
conviction can be sustained on its basis; in this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Purshottam Chopra and another Vs.State (Government of
NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 11 SCC 489, has held that a dying
declaration could be the sole basis of conviction even without corroboration,
if it inspires confidence of the court. The court should be satisfied that the
declarant was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement; and
that it was a voluntary statement which was not the result of tutoring,
prompting or imagination.
31. From the appellant’s side, the main argument has been that in her dying
declaration (Exhibit P-16) the deceased Najma stated that “Kaleem Punjabi”
set her on fire, whereas the appellant’s name is Kaleem, not Kaleem Punjabi;
rather, Kaleem Punjabi is some other person. In this regard, the appellant
examined defence witnesses Shaukat Hussain (DW-1) and Naimuddin (DW-
2), and through both witnesses an attempt was made to prove that the
accused Kaleem is not a Punjabi muslim and that the accused is not known
by the name Kaleem Punjabi. The above two witnesses produced by the
appellant are not reliable. This is because, in the cross-examination of the
prosecution witnesses Ibbu alias Imran (PW-2), Salim (PW-3), and
Sakharam (PW-4), no suggestion was given that the accused is not called
Kaleem Punjabi and that there is another person in the locality namedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1614112 CRA-463-2016
Kaleem Punjabi. Moreover, in the First Information Report (Exhibit P-3), the
accused is mentioned as Kaleem s/o Majid, Muslim, resident of Dhangaon,
and similarly, in the spot map/panchanama (Exhibit P-4) also, Kaleem s/o
Abdul Majid is mentioned. Therefore, the said argument has no merit.
32. From the defence side, Saleem (DW-3) was again examined as
Defence Witness No. 3, and he was made to give a statement contrary to
what he had stated earlier in support of the prosecution. In such a situation,
his statement recorded as a defence witness cannot be accepted. It is
appropriate to mention here that once a witness has been examined by the
prosecution, he should not be examined again as a defence witness; rather, if
the court finds it necessary to re-examine the witness for the ends of
justice, it may allow re-examination or cross-examination, but it cannot allow
the witness to be examined as a defence witness. In this regard, the principle
laid down in the Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Badri
Yadav and another (2006) 9 SCC 549 is worth noting, which is as follows-
“11. In our view, the reasoning recorded by the High
Court, itself would have been sufficient to reject the
testimony of DW 1 and DW 2. However, having said so
the High Court reversed the order of conviction and
recorded the order of acquittal, which is perverse.
12. In this case the application under Section 311 CrPC
for recalling PW 8 and PW 9 and re-examining them
was rejected by the court on 2-9-1994. Therefore, the
question with regard to recalling PW 8 and PW 9 and
re-examining them stood closed. There is no provision
in the Code of Criminal Procedure that by filing
affidavit the witnesses examined as PWs (PW 8 and
PW 9 in this case) could be juxtaposed as DW 1 and
DW 2 and be examined as defence witnesses on behalf
of the accused.
13. Mr A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned Senior
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1614113 CRA-463-2016
Counsel for the respondent, however, contended that the
accused is entitled to enter upon defence and adduce
evidence in support of his case as provided under
Section 233 CrPC particularly sub-section (3) of
Section 233. Sub-section (3) of Section 233 reads:
“233. (3) If the accused applies for the issue
of any process for compelling the attendance
of any witness or the production of any
document or thing, the Judge shall issue such
process unless he considers, for reasons to be
recorded, that such application should be
refused on the ground that it is made for the
purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating
the ends of justice.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. Section 233 itself deals with entering upon defence
by the accused. The application for recalling and re-
examining persons already examined, as provided under
Section 311 CrPC, was already rejected. The power to
summon any person as a witness or recall and re-
examine any person already examined is the
discretionary power of the court in case such evidence
appears to it to be essential for a just decision of the
case. Under Section 233 CrPC the accused can enter
upon defence and he can apply for the issue of any
process for compelling the attendance of any witness in
his defence. The provisions of sub-section (3) of
Section 233 cannot be understood as compelling the
attendance of any prosecution witness examined, cross-
examined and discharged to be juxtaposed as a defence
witness. In the present case PW 8 and PW 9 were
juxtaposed as DW 1 and DW 2. This situation is not one
what was contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section
233 CrPC.
15. When such frivolous and vexatious petitions are
filed, a judge is not powerless. He should have used his
discretionary power and should have refused relief on
the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
14 CRA-463-2016
delay or for defeating the ends of justice. In the present
case, the witnesses were examined by the prosecution
as eyewitnesses on 18-12-1990, cross-examined and
discharged. Thereafter, an application under Section
311 CrPC was rejected. They were recalled purportedly
in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section
233 CrPC and examined as DW 1 and DW 2 on behalf
of the accused on 17-7-1995. This was clearly for the
purpose of defeating the ends of justice, which is not
permissible under the law.
16. In Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
[(2004) 12 SCC 229 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 196] in
which one of us Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, J. was the author
of the judgment, in somewhat similar case to the facts
of the present case, it was held that once a witness is
examined as a prosecution witness, he cannot be
allowed to perjure himself by resiling from the
testimony given in court on oath by filing affidavit
stating that whatever he had deposed before court as
PW was not true and was done so at the instance of the
police. In that case the evidence of PW 1 was relied
upon by the trial court and also by the High Court. He
was examined by the prosecution as an eyewitness. He
also identified the appellants and the co-accused in the
court. After a long lapse of time he filed an affidavit
stating that whatever he had stated before the court was
not true and had done so at the instance of the police. In
those facts and circumstances this Court in paras 38 and
39 at SCC pp. 240-41 held as under:
“38. Significantly this witness, later on filed an
affidavit, wherein he had sworn to the fact that whatever
he had deposed before court as PW 1 was not true and it
was so done at the instance of the police.
39. The averments in the affidavit are rightly rejected
by the High Court and also the Sessions Court. Once the
witness is examined as a prosecution witness, he cannot
be allowed to perjure himself by resiling from the
testimony given in court on oath. It is pertinent to note
that during the intervening period between giving of
evidence as PW 1 and filing of affidavit in court later,
he was in jail in a narcotic case and that the accused
persons were also fellow inmates there.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
15 CRA-463-2016
17. In the present case, both PW 8 and PW 9 are related
to the deceased. PW 8 is the elder brother of the
deceased and PW 9 is the friend of the deceased. Being
the close relative and friend of the deceased there is no
rhyme and reason to depose falsely against the accused
and allowing the real culprit to escape unpunished. On
21-9-1989, their statements were recorded under
Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate. On 18-12-
1990, their depositions were recorded before the
Sessions Judge. In both the statements they have stated
that they were eyewitnesses and witnessed the
occurrence. Both of them have stated that they saw the
accused assaulting the deceased with knives and
swords. They were subjected to lengthy cross-
examination but nothing could be elicited to discredit
the statement-in-chief. Their examination as defence
witnesses was recorded on 17-7-1995 when they resiled
completely from the previous statements as prosecution
witnesses. It, therefore, clearly appears that the
subsequent statements as defence witnesses were
concocted well an afterthought. They were either won
over or were under threat or intimidation from the
accused. No reasonable person, properly instructed in
law, would have acted upon such statements.”
33. On careful consideration of the entire evidence, it is evident that
although no eyewitness saw the accused set the deceased Najma on fire, the
dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Sanawad (Exhibit P-
16), is reliable, voluntary, and corroborated by the First Information Report
(Exhibit P-3). The statements of PW-2 (Ibbu alias Imran) and PW-3
(Saleem) consistently support that Najma identified the appellant Kaleem as
the perpetrator, citing a monetary dispute as motive. The appellant’s
contention that the deceased referred to “Kaleem Punjabi” is unsubstantiated,
as no evidence suggests another individual by that name, and the FIR and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16141
16 CRA-463-2016
spot panchanama clearly identify the accused. Defence witnesses attempting
to contradict this identification were found unreliable. Other factors
regarding seizure of articles, hostile witnesses, and minor contradictions in
evidence do not weaken the prosecution case. Medical evidence confirms the
cause of death due to burns caused intentionally, and procedural compliance
regarding the dying declaration is established. So far as the case of Radhelal
vs State of MP (Criminal Appeal 422/1996, Judgment dated on 17-04-2025)
which has been relied by counsel for the appellant/accused is concerned, the
same is of no assistance to the appellant on the basis of the principle
propounded in the said case because the facts and circumstances of this case
are different
34. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly,
the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment with fine are
upheld.
35. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
Rao
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 26-02-2026
11:47:17
