Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar @ Chunku vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
1 CRA-22-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 22 of 2014
RAJKUMAR @ CHUNKU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Surendra Verma - counsel for the appellant
Shri B.K.Upadhyay - Government Advocate for respondent-State
Heard on : 20/08/2025
Delivered on : 29/04/2026
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari
This instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
impugned judgment dated 02/12/2013 passed by Sessions Judge District
Panna in S.T.No.128/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted under
Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine
of Rs.5,000/-with default stipulations.
2. The brief facts of the case are that PW-11, Kesri Singh, lodged an
oral complaint at Police Station Dharampur, District Panna, stating that his
son, Indra Singh, had been murdered by the accused, Raj Kumar Lodh, who
assaulted him with an axe. Based on this information, a merg was registered,
and subsequently, FIR bearing Crime No. 139/2012 was lodged against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
2 CRA-22-2014
accused under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution case is that on
08/02/2012, the deceased, Indrajeet, was grazing his buffalo in an
agricultural field when the accused, Raj Kumar Lodh, arrived at the spot
carrying an axe. A dispute arose between them regarding a mobile battery,
following which the accused assaulted the deceased with the axe. As a result
of the attack, the deceased sustained severe injuries to his neck, face, and
hands, fell to the ground, and died on the spot.
3. After the registration of FIR, the police initiated the investigation.
During the course of the investigation, a spot map was prepared, and both
blood-stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence.
Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The accused was arrested, and his memorandum
statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded,
pursuant to which an axe, alleged to be the weapon of offence, was
recovered at his instance. The blood-stained T-shirt of the accused was also
seized.The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination.
All seized articles were forwarded to the State Forensic Science Laboratory,
Sagar (M.P.), for chemical analysis. Upon completion of the investigation,
the police filed a charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
District Panna (M.P.).
4. After perusing the charge-sheet, the Judicial Magistrate First Class
District Panna (M.P.) committed the case and forwarded the same to the
Session Court for commencement of trial. Subsequently, the case was
registered as Sessions Trial No. 128/2012 in the Court of the Sessions Judge,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
3 CRA-22-2014
District Panna.
5. Learned trial court framed the charges under Section 302 of IPC
on the accused. The accused refused to accept the charges and wished to face
the trial.
6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined nine
witnesses, marked as PW-1 to PW-9, and also exhibited documents marked
as Exhibits P-1 to P-17. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he is innocent. He further contended that the
deceased had an illicit relationship with a girl from the same locality, who
subsequently committed suicide. Due to this enmity, someone else allegedly
murdered the deceased, and he has been falsely implicated in the present
case with the intention of usurping his property.In support of his defence, the
accused did not examine any defence witnesses and relied only on the
statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of Smt. Hirania Bai,
Smt. Kalli Bai, Chhotelal, and Kesri Singh, which were exhibited as Exhibits
D-1 to D-4.
7. The learned trial court, after appreciating the material available on
record, came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of committing the
murder of the deceased, Lalu @ Indra Singh. Accordingly, the appellant is
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.
5,000/-, with a stipulation for a default sentence in case of non-payment of
the fine.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred
the present appeal on the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
4 CRA-22-2014
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is
an innocent person and has not committed the alleged offence. He further
contended that independent eyewitnesses present at the time of the incident,
namely Pramod and Arvind, were not examined by the prosecution. The
conviction of the appellant is primarily based on the ocular evidence of PW-
1 Smt. Hirnia Bai, PW-8 Smt. Kalli Bai, PW-9 Chhottelal Lodh, and PW-11
Kesri Singh, who are close relatives and interested witnesses, and whose
testimonies suffer from material contradictions and omissions. It is further
submitted that there has been a violation of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C.,
rendering the prosecution story unreliable. In support of this contention, he
has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivlal
and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh , reported in AIR 2012 SC 280,
Equivalent citation is (2011) 9 SCC 561. It is also argued that the alleged
seizure from the appellant has not been duly proved, as the seizure witnesses
and witnesses to the memorandum stated in their depositions that the police
neither arrested the appellant nor recorded his statement in their presence.
They further stated that the contents of the memorandum were not disclosed
to them and no recovery was made in their presence; rather, their signatures
were merely obtained on certain documents by the police. It was additionally
contended that although a merg was initially registered, the FIR was lodged
without conducting a proper merg inquiry. On these grounds, the appellant
has prayed for allowing the appeal and for his acquittal from the alleged
offence by setting aside the impugned judgment.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the appeal and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
5 CRA-22-2014
submitted that the trial court, after proper appreciation of the material
evidence on record, rightly concluded that the appellant had murdered the
deceased. It is argued that the prosecution story, as narrated by the
eyewitnesses, stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence. It was
further contended that the seizure was duly proved through the examination
of the Investigating Officer. An axe was seized at the instance of the
appellant, marked as Article C; the T-shirt of the appellant was marked as
Article D; and blood-stained soil, marked as Article A, was sent for chemical
analysis to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. As per the FSL
report (Exhibit P-17), human blood was found on Articles A and C, and the
blood group on Articles A and C was determined to be “B”, which supports
the prosecution case against the appellant. It was also submitted that, as per
the post-mortem report, the deceased sustained multiple incised wounds on
the neck, face, head, and hand, and the cause of death was shock due to
excessive bleeding from the neck. The post-mortem report was duly proved
by PW-10 Dr. S.R. Sharma. Learned counsel further argued that mere non-
examination of certain eyewitnesses does not render the entire prosecution
case doubtful. Similarly, any alleged non-compliance of provisions of
Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. would not, by itself, be sufficient to discard the
entire prosecution case or to conclude that it is concocted. On these grounds,
it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the impugned judgment
passed by the learned trial court be affirmed.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
6 CRA-22-2014
12. Now, the following questions arise for adjudication before this
Court:
(i) Whether the learned trial court was justified in passing the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence;
(ii) Whether, in the absence of examination of other independent
eyewitnesses, the prosecution case otherwise supported by the testimonies of
the examined eyewitnesses can be discarded; and
(iii) Whether non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 157
of the Cr.P.C. renders the entire prosecution case doubtful or unreliable.
13. On the basis of information and oral complaint made by PW-11,
the father of the deceased, a merg was registered on 02/08/2012 at about 1:25
p.m. In the merg intimation, there is a specific allegation against the
appellant that he committed the murder of the deceased by inflicting injuries
with an axe on the neck, head, and other parts of the body. Thereafter, the
FIR (Exhibit P-3) was registered on the very same day. The dead body was
recovered and sent for post-mortem examination. As per the post-mortem
report (Exhibit P-10), multiple incised wounds were found on the front and
right side of the neck, the left and right side of the face, and other parts of the
body. The cause of death was opined to be shock resulting from excessive
bleeding due to the neck injury. Blood-stained soil was seized from the place
of occurrence. After the arrest of the appellant, the police recorded his
memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Exhibit P-7),
and, at his instance, an axe was recovered and seized from the old house of
Raghvendra. The T-shirt of the appellant was also seized. The seized articles,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
7 CRA-22-2014
namely blood-stained soil (Article A), axe (Article C), and T-shirt (Article
D), were sent for chemical analysis.As per the FSL report (Exhibit P-17),
blood was detected on Articles A, C, and D. Human blood was found on
Articles A and C, and the blood group on Articles A and C was determined to
be “B”.
14. PW-11 Kesri Singh, the father of the deceased; PW-1 Smt.
Hirania Bai, the mother of the deceased; PW-8 Smt. Kalli Bai; and PW-9
Chhottelal have consistently supported the prosecution case as narrated in the
Dehati Nalishi, FIR, and their statements recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C.During their cross-examination, the defence could not elicit any
material contradiction or omission so as to cast doubt on the prosecution
story or their examination-in-chief. On being specifically questioned, these
eyewitnesses denied the suggestion that they had not witnessed the incident.
They categorically deposed that the appellant inflicted injuries on the neck,
face, and other parts of the body of the deceased with an axe.
15. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that according to the
prosecution story, independent witnesses namely Pramod and Arvind were
also present at the time of the incident and had allegedly witnessed the
occurrence; however, the prosecution has failed to examine them. It is further
argued that all the eyewitnesses, namely PW-1, PW-8, PW-9, and PW-11,
are close relatives of the deceased, and therefore their testimony is not
reliable. It is not in dispute that the said independent witnesses, Pramod and
Arvind, were not examined by the prosecution. PW-1, PW-8, PW-9, and
PW-11 are indeed related witnesses. However, merely because the witnesses
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
8 CRA-22-2014
are related to the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded on that
ground alone. The evidence of related witnesses must be appreciated with
caution and tested carefully, and if found trustworthy, can form the basis of
conviction when corroborated by other evidence. In the present case, the
testimony of the aforesaid witnesses stands duly corroborated by medical
evidence as well as the evidence of PW-10, the medical officer. Thus, in our
considered opinion, the conviction cannot be said to be vitiated merely on
the ground that it is based on the testimony of related witnesses. Moreover,
no material contradictions or omissions have been brought on record in the
statements of the said eyewitnesses so as to discredit their version.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant has not specifically disputed
the memorandum and seizure proceedings as having been duly proved by the
prosecution. However, PW-5 Rammanohar Lodh and PW-6 Ramesh Lodh,
who are seizure witnesses, did not support the prosecution case in their cross-
examination. They stated that the documents were not prepared in their
presence and that the axe was not recovered before them. They further
deposed that the police authorities had merely obtained their signatures on
certain documents.
17. On the other hand, PW-12 Sandeep Tomar, the Investigating
Officer of the case, in his deposition before the trial Court, stated that the
memorandum was recorded in the presence of the witnesses and the axe and
T-shirt were recovered at the instance of the appellant in the presence of the
witnesses.
18. In cross-examination, the appellant has not brought any material
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
9 CRA-22-2014
on record to create doubt regarding the seizure memo. Mere statements made
by the seizure witnesses during cross-examination are not sufficient to
discard the seizure proceedings, particularly when the said witnesses, in their
examination-in-chief, have admitted that the memorandum was recorded in
their presence and that articles were seized at the instance of the appellant in
their presence.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no
disclosure in the FIR as to the manner and mode in which a copy of the FIR
was communicated to the concerned Magistrate. Therefore, there is violation
of the mandatory provisions of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. and, in view of
such non-compliance of the said mandatory provision, the entire prosecution
case becomes doubtful and the benefit thereof deserves to be extended to the
appellant.
20. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the
appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Court in the case of
Shivlal (supra). The said question was further considered by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in a bunch of cases in Dhirendra Singh @ Dhiru and
another vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 7/2012), decided on 05/09/2019.
Paragraphs 32 to 41 are relevant. The same are reproduced as under:-
32. The appellants contended that the FIR was ante-
dated. As mandated in Section 157 Code of Criminal
rocedure, the prosecution could not establish that FIR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
10 CRA-22-2014
was “forthwith” sent to the concerned Court, hence the
factum of lodging FIR is highly doubtful. Moreso when
certain prosecution witnesses have deposed that they
informed the concerned police station on telephone and
police reached to the place of incident promptly. Since,
FIR itself is under shadow of doubt, the entire
investigation and trial founded upon it is also under dark
shadow of doubt.
33. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is
apposite to refer to Section 157(1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 which reads as under :
“157. Procedure for investigation . – (1) If, from
information received or otherwise, an officer in charge
of a police station has reason to suspect the commission
of an offence which he is empowered under section 156
to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the
same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of
such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in
person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers
not being below such rank as the State Government
may, by general or special order, prescribe in this
behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts
and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take
measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender;
(Emphasis supplied)
34. In catena of judgments, it was held that Code of
Criminal Procedure provides for certain internal and
external checks, one of them being the receipt of a copy
of the first information report by Magistrate concern.
[See: 2007 (13) SCC 501 (Ramesh Baburao Devaskar
and others Vs. State of Maharashtra)]. In 2013 (12)
SCC 316 (Rattiram and others Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh), it was held that the purpose behind sending a
copy of the FIR to the Magistrate concern is toavoid
any kind of suspicion being attached to the FIR. The
Court may draw adverse inference against the
prosecution if it is not convinced as regards the
truthfulness of the prosecution version and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
11 CRA-22-2014
trustworthiness of the witnesses.
35. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in Man
Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr. A. No.1485/1994) reported
in 2019 (2) MPLJ (Cri) 191 considered the number of
judgments of Supreme Court and culled out the
principles in Para 47 of the said judgment. The purpose
behind insertion of Section 157 Cr.P.C. is to keep the
Magistrate informed about investigation of a cognizable
offence to enable him to control the investigation and if
necessary to give proper direction under Section 159
Cr.P.C. It is held to be an ‘external check’ on the
working of the police agency.
36. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the
judgments referred in Man Singh (supra) are considered
in their true spirit, it can be safely concluded that delay
in sending the report to concerned Court under Section
157 Cr.P.C. will not make the FIR as untrustworthy as a
rule of thumb. If such delay is caused prejudice to the
accused and creates a serious doubt on the factum of
lodging the FIR itself at the appropriate time and if
prosecution is unable to establish its case by leading
cogent and credible evidence, the delay in dispatching
the FIR may be detrimental to the case of the
prosecution
37. We are not oblivious of the fact that in the present
case the argument of learned senior counsel for the
appellants was that the prosecution has failed to
establish that FIR was ever sent to the Court concerned.
Interestingly, this point was not raised by appellants
even feebly before the Court below. However, this point
is no more res integra. In 1995 MPLJ 439 (Naniya Vs.
State of M.P.), this Court opined that there were six
eye-witnesses against the appellants. It is not the case of
defence that they were in any way on inimical terms
with the accused persons and, therefore, the entire
testimony of all the six eye-witnesses cannot be rejected
merely because the fact of information being sent to the
Magistrate under Section 157 Cr.P.C. has not been
proved.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
12 CRA-22-2014
38. Similarly, in 2002 (5) MPLJ 359 (State of M.P. Vs.
Pattu @ Pratap Singh) also it was held that “mere non-
compliance of Section 157 Cr.P.C. shall not led to
throwing out the case of the prosecution. Compliance of
this provision is an external check provided in Code of
Criminal Procedure to prevent ante-dating of FIR”.
39. In the case of Pattu (supra), since there was nothing
on record to establish that FIR was ante-dated, the Court
did not believe the defence that FIR was antedated. In
2004 (2) MPLJ 561 (Poor Singh & Others vs. State of
M.P.), this Court opined that non-compliance of Section
157 Cr.P.C. is an infirmity which when coupled with
other infirmities, might extend benefit of doubt to the
accused. The case of the prosecution may not be thrown
out merely for non-compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C
40. In the instant case also, there is no evidence on
record to show that wife of the deceased, sister-in-law
of the deceased and Kamlesh (brother) were having any
previous animosity with the appellants. They were eye-
witnesses and deposed about the incident in great detail.
They could identify the appellants and narrate the role
played by them during the incident41. The judgments of
Supreme Court in Data Ram, Aqeel Ahmed, Thanedar
Singh and Chhabilal (supra) are of no assistance to the
appellants in the instant case because no enmity
between the appellants and the eye-witnesses could be
established. Merely because certain columns of FIR
were not filled up, it cannot be said that FIR was written
ante-time. The ratio decidendi of judgments of Supreme
Court while interpreting Section 157 Cr.P.C. is that
mere violation of Section 157 will not make the FIR as
untrustworthy as a straight jacket formula. It will only a
circumstance which may create doubt or may cause dent
on the story of prosecution, if prosecution has otherwise
failed to establish its case by leadingcogent evidence.
Thus, we are unable to hold that FIR is untrustworthy in
the instant case because copy thereof was not sent to the
concerned Court. We say so because we are convinced
that prosecution has led credible evidence to
establish its case which will be considered hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
13 CRA-22-2014
21. Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, recently in a bunch
of cases in Lalla @ Dharmendra vs. State of M.P. and others held in
paragraph 48 that if the provisions of Section 157(1) of the Cr.P.C. are not
complied with at all, or if there is delay in sending a copy of the FIR to the
concerned Magistrate, then a heavy duty is cast upon the trial Court to
scrutinize the entire prosecution case very minutely, with due caution, and
thereafter ascertain whether the ocular and other material evidence brought
on record is reliable and credible or not.
22. In the present case, it is the prosecution story that the deceased
sustained incised wounds on his neck, face, and other parts of the body. The
ocular testimonies of PW-1, PW-8, PW-9, and PW-11 support the
prosecution case. Their depositions are duly corroborated by the medical
evidence as well as the FSL report. The medical evidence was further proved
by PW-10 Dr. S.R. Sharma. As per his opinion, the injuries sustained by the
deceased were caused by a hard and sharp-edged weapon.
23. Upon overall consideration and analysis of the documentary as
well as ocular evidence adduced by the witnesses, we have reached to the
conclusion that the learned trial Court has not committed any error or
illegality in holding the appellant guilty of committing the murder of the
deceased. We also have no hesitation in holding that mere non-examination
of other independent witnesses who were allegedly present at the time of the
incident is not sufficient to doubt the entire prosecution case. Likewise, mere
non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C.
would not, by itself, frustrate the prosecution case or warrant its rejection,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33508
14 CRA-22-2014
particularly when the prosecution has otherwise duly established its case
beyond reasonable doubt by cogent ocular and documentary evidence. We
have not found any substantial force in the grounds raised by the appellant in
the memorandum of appeal or in the arguments advanced at the time of final
hearing so as to warrant interference with the well-reasoned and speaking
judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by
the appellant, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The judgment
dated 02/12/2013 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed.
23. Record of the trial court be sent back.
24. A copy of this order be kept in the record of trial court.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
S /-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 30-04-2026
12:23:16
[ad_1]
Source link
