Dilip vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2026

July 15, 2026

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dilip vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2026

1. Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being disgruntled by the judgment
dated 11.08.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, District

SPONSORED

Shajapur, in Sessions Trial No.140/2012 whereby the appellant and co-
accused Jujhhar Singh have been convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 201 & 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to as “IPC“) and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment, 07 years R.I. & 10
years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.500/- & Rs.500/- respectively and default
stipulations.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18675

2 CRA-7818-2024

2. The prosecution story as emerged during trial briefly stated that on
08.03.2011, on the basis of information received by one Nepal Singh at
Police Station Agar, District Shajapur that the dead body of an unknown
person was lying on the drainage, Merg No. 9/2011 was registered under
Section 174 of IPC, thereafter, the investigation was initiated. Further, it was
found that the deceased died because of stab wounds. Hence, Crime No.
91/2011 was registered against the unknown person for the offence under
Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. When this fact came to know to the knowledge
of brother of the deceased namely Badrilal, he went to the police station,
from where, he was taken to the place where his brother’s body was buried.
The deceased was identified by his brother, Badrilal as Mukesh S/o Ghisalal

and it was revealed that he used to drive a taxi and on 07.03.2011, he took
Maruti Van bearing registration No. MP-13-C-5156 for a trip.

3. As soon as, this fact was revealed that Mukesh was murdered and
his Maruti van and mobile handset were stolen by unknown persons, Section
397 of IPC was added in the case. During the investigation, the deceased’s
mobile phone was recovered from Nemichand Jain’s shop in Patan
and Maruti Van was seized in an abandoned condition by Police Station
Asnawar, District Jhalawar from the Ratadevi Temple premises. Later on,it
was recovered by the Agar Police Station, as involved in the present crime.
On 29.02.2012, the accused Jujhar Singh and Dilip were arrested and against
them Crime No. 29/2012 was registered under Sections 394 and 397 of IPC
at Police Station Raghavi. After questioning them and on the basis of their
confession, they were formally arrested on 29.02.2012 in the present crime.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18675

3 CRA-7818-2024
Based on the information provided by the accused through a memorandum,
both the tyres of the Maruti van and the knife used in the present crime were
recovered. The identification process of the accused was carried out. Acting
as per the seizure memo, two cigarette buds and gutkha waste and a pouch
were seized from inside the Maruti van. The DNA samples and fingerprints
were collected and sent to FSL Sagar for finger matching and matching with
the DNA of the accused.

4. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
the appellants Dilip and Jujhhar before JMFC Agar for offence under
Sections 302, 201, 394 & 397 of IPC. The case against the appellants has
been committed to the Court of Sessions, Agar, District Shajapur. Thereafter,
charges were framed under Sections 302, 201 & 397 of IPC. In turn,
appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that they had been falsely
implicated in the present crime and prayed for trial.

5. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 32
witnesses namely Kamalsingh (PW-1), Khaleel (PW-2), Said (PW-

3), Badrilal (PW-4), Rodmal (PW-5), Alkarsingh (PW-6), Saddam (PW-

7), Jujhhar Singh S/o Jagannath (PW-8), Gangaram (PW-9), Nepalsingh
(PW-10), Sanjay (PW-11) Iliyassingh Tirki (PW-12), Govind Kumar
Soni (PW-13), Jitendra (PW-14), Nemichand (PW-15), Dr. Shashank
Saxena (PW-16), Manish Mishra (PW-17), G.K. Gehlot (PW-18),
Hokamchand (PW-19), Pinku Marotha, Constable (PW-20), Dr. R.L.
Malviya (PW-21), Ganeshsingh Chouhan (PW-22), Devendrasingh (PW-23),
A.R. Khan, Thana In-charge (PW-24), P.L. Raj, SDOP (PW-25),
Devkinand (PW-26), Manish Kumar (PW-27), Gangaram (PW-28),

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18675

4 CRA-7818-2024
Ishwarsingh (PW-29), Shivprasad Sen (PW-30), Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-

31) and Nayab Tehsildar Harisingh Dhurve (PW-32). No witness has been
adduced by the appellants in their defence.

6. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument
advanced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 11.08.2016,
finally concluded the case and convicted the appellants for commission of
the said offence under Sections 302, 201 & 397 & 394 of IPC.

7. Here, it is of paramount importance to mention that the co-accused
Jujhhar Singh has separately filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.
1282/2016, which was allowed by Division Bench of this Court by setting
aside the impugned judgment dated 11.08.2016 and he was acquitted from
the charges framed against him.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, being crestfallen by the aforesaid
findings of the Trial Court, submitted that there is no specific allegation of
causing injuries against the appellants. There was no intention to cause death
of deceased Mukesh. It is contended that there is no direct witness to the
incident and prosecution has not produced any evidence of the nature that
appellant Dilip was last seen with Mukesh just before the body of the
deceased Mukesh was found. It is also contended that in case of
circumstantial evidence, every link should be interconnected and there should
be a solid evidence in this regard then only conclusion can be drawn that the
appellant is guilty. In the instant case, the procedure followed in sending the
sample for DNA report was not carried out properly. The statements of
prosecution witnesses are self-contradictory and various contradictions and
omissions have been found in their statements, therefore, their statements

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18675

5 CRA-7818-2024

cannot be relied upon. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. On these grounds, appellant is entitled for acquittal by
setting aside the judgment impugned.

9 . Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant by
sentencing him appropriately. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

10. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions raised at bar and have also carefully perused the impugned
judgment and evidence available on record. The question for consideration,
whether the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is no based
on proper appreciation of relevant legal position and the evidence on record ?

11. In the instant case, the prosecution has relied upon the Test
Identification Parade (TIP) to establish the identity of the persons who
committed the offence. To establish this circumstance, the prosecution has
examined Nayab Tehsildar, Harisingh Dhurve (PW-32), who conducted the
TIP. In his deposition, he has stated that he himself conducted the TIP
wherein complainant Mohanlal identified the accused Dilip while
Jujharsingh S/o Jagnnath and Gangaram (PW-28) did not identify the
accused Dilip. That apart, Gangaram (PW-28) has been declared hostile by
the prosecution.

12. So far as the credibility of identification parade is concerned, it can
be said that the identification parades belong to the investigation stage and
therefore it is desirable to hold them at the earliest opportunity. An early
opportunity to identify tends to minimise the chances of the memory of the

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18675

6 CRA-7818-2024
identifying witnesses fading away due to long lapse of time. If in any case,
the contention of the identification parade was held in an irregular manner or
that there was an undue delay in holding it, the Magistrate who held the
parade and the police officer who conducted the investigation should have
been cross-examined in that behalf, whereas in the instant case, we find that
the defence has not imputed any motive to the prosecution holding the test
identification parade, nor has the defence alleged that there was any
irregularity in holding of the test identification parade. The evidence of the
Magistrate conducting the test identification parade as well as the
investigating officer has gone unchallenged. Thus, the testimony of Nayab
Tehsildar, Harisingh Dhurve (PW-32) does not find any infirmity in the
identification parade and nothing much has been elicited in the cross-
examination of PW-32 on the aspect of identification of the accused in the
TIP.

13. It is trite law that identification tests (TIP) do not serve as
substantive evidence but are primarily intended to assist the investigation in
ensuring that the progress in investigating the offence is on the correct path.
Holding a TIP is not obligatory, but a failure to hold TIP cannot be a ground
to eschew the testimony of witnesses whose evidence was concurrently
accepted by the trial Court.

14. Now, coming to the next question for determination with regard to

DNA report, as per DNA report (Exhibit-P/34), the blood present on the
cigarette buds and on gutkha waste as well as on the pouch, was found
positive. Besides, as per seizure memo (Ex.P/2) of appellant, a knife used in

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18675

7 CRA-7818-2024
the crime was seized from his house. Hence, the same is conclusive evidence
and sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant.

15. In this regard, the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Manoj
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported as (2023) 2 SCC 353, wherein the
Apex Court endorsing its earlier judgment, is worth to quote here :-

140. This court, in one of its recent decisions Pattu Rajan v. The
State of Tamil Nadu , considered the value and weight to be
attached to a DNA report :

“33. Like all other opinion evidence, the probative
value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case
to case, depending on facts and circumstances and the
weight accorded to other evidence on record, whether
contrary or corroborative. This is all the more important
to remember, given that even though the accuracy of
DNA evidence may be increasing with the advancement
of science and technology with every passing day,
thereby making it more and more reliable, we have not
yet reached a juncture where it may be said to be
infallible. Thus, it cannot be said that the absence of
DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference
against a party, especially in the presence of other
cogent and reliable evidence on record in favour of such
party.”

16. In view of the above, scientific evidence deserves greater
evidentiary value when properly collected. In this case also, DNA report
(Exhibit-P/34) has been found positive against the appellant.

17. Another question requires determination is as to whether the
appellant alongwith co-accused committed murder of the deceased (Mukesh)
or sold out the wheels of his Maruti Van and his mobile phone ?

18. To decide this issue, We have gone through the statements of

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18675

8 CRA-7818-2024
Kamalsingh (PW-1) and Kaleel (PW-2), Badrilal (PW-4), Rodmal (PW-

5), Alkar Singh (PW-6) & Saddam (PW-7). In the statement of Badrilal
(PW-4), who is the brother of the deceased, he stated that the deceased took
Maruti Van bearing registration No. MP13-C-5156 and also filled the gas in
Khilchipur, but after a lapse of 2-3 days, when the deceased did not return to
home, (PW-4) started to search him and came to know that his
brother/deceased was dead. The statement of this witness has not been
rebutted in his cross-examination.

19. At the outset, to connect the channel of the appellant with the
crime, the statement of witness Kamalsingh (PW-1) is required to be
remunerated. He has clearly deposed in his statement that accused Jujhhar
and Dilip came to him on a Maruti Van and sold him two tires of the same
Maruti Van stating that they were in need of money. After 2-3 months, the
police seized the said two tires from him. Having said that, this case is well
fortified by witness (PW-1) that the accused were accompanied with the
deceased before his death.

20. So far as the discrepancies and contradictions came in the
statements of witnesses are concerned, actually, counsel for the appellants
was not able to point out the discrepancies or contradictions which hit the
root of case. With regard to the discrepancies in the statements of witnesses,
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Babasaheb Apparao Patil v. State of
Maharashtra [AIR 2009 SC 1461], held as under:-

“12. It is to be borne in mind that some discrepancies in
the ocular account of a witness, unless these are vital,
cannot per se affect the credibility of the evidence of the

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18675

9 CRA-7818-2024
witness. Unless the contradictions are material, the
same cannot be used to jettison the evidence in its
entirety. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an
otherwise acceptable evidence. Merely because there is
inconsistency in evidence, it is not sufficient to impair
the credibility of the witness. It is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that
the court would be justified in discarding his evidence.”

21. As far as the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant that
on the basis of related and interested witnesses, the appellant can not be
convicted, is concerned, certainly, the witnesses are related to each other. On
this aspect in the case of “Dilip Singh vs. State of Punjab ” reported as AIR
1953 SC 364, the full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para 26
as under:-

“26. ……… Ordinarily, a close relative would be the
last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an
innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and
there is personal cause’ for enmity, that there is a
tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a
witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but
foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the
mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is
often a sure guarantee of truth.”

22. Further in the case of Masalti vs. State of Uṭtar Pradesh reported
in [AIR 1965 SC 202] wherein it has been held in para 14 as under:-

“14. ………. There is no doubt that when a criminal
Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses
who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful
in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are
discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the
evidence strikes the Court as genuine; whether or not
the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18675

10 CRA-7818-2024
matters which must be taken into account. But it would,
we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence
given by witnesses should be discarded only on the
ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested
witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in
villages and murders are committed as a result of
enmity between such factions, criminal Courts have to
deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical
rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is
partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice.”

23. As such, the argument regarding interested witnesses is also
appears to be feeble arguments. So far as the relatedness and interestedness
is concerned, in a recent decision laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Laltu Ghosh vs. State of West Bangal, AIR 2019 SC 1058 is relevant
to be referred here:-

“This Court has elucidated the difference between
‘interested’ and ‘related’ witnesses in a plethora of
cases, stating that a witness may be called interested
only when he or she derives some benefit from the
result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal
case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect
interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior
enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely
implicate the accused.”

24. As per the human tendency, a close relative would put forth the
actual story of incident rather than hide the actual culprit and foist an
innocent person. Virtually, in many of the criminal cases, it is often seen that
the offence is witnessed by close relatives of the victim, whose presence on
the spot of incident would be natural and the evidence of such witness cannot
automatically be discarded by leveling them as interested witness.

25. In view of the aforesaid propositions, the evidenciary value of

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18675

11 CRA-7818-2024
witnesses’ testimony cannot be wiped out only on the basis of
trivial discrepancies and their relations with the deceased.

26. So far as the arguments regarding non-availability of independent
witnesses are concerned, it is well settled that no criminal case can be
overboarded due to non-availability of independent prosecution witnesses. In
this regard, the following verdict of landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court rendered in the case of Appa Bhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988
SC 696 is worth referring here as under :-

“10…….Experience reminds us that civilized people are
generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in
their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and
the vigilante. They keep themselves away from
the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime
like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties
and they should not involve themselves. This kind of
apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it
is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or
cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the
investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The
court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution
case for want of independent witness must consider the
broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then
search for the nugget of truth with due regard to
probability if any, suggested by the accused……”

27. In view of the settled proposition of law only on the basis of the
fact that no independent witness has supported the case of prosecution, the
prosecution story which has been supported by DNA Report, Identification
Parade as well as witnesses cannot be wiped out. In these circumstances, it
can be well assumed that the appellant has assaulted the deceased by means
of knife due to which the deceased succumbed.

28. In the case at hand, the aforesaid ratio is exactly applicable. Having

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18675

12 CRA-7818-2024
gone through the whole record in entirety, it is apparent that the statement of
witnesses as well as DNA report and identification parade are absolutely
worth relying. Accordingly, the same cannot be disbelieved. As such, the
prosecution case against the appellant has been proved beyond the
reasonable doubt. The judgment of learned trial Court after well appreciation
of evidence with regard to the conviction of appellant under Sections 302,
201 & 397 is found infallible and immaculate.

29. In upshot of the aforesaid analysis as well as deliberations in
entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the
appellant under Sections 302, 201 & 397 of IPC has no infirmity and
illegality.

30. With the aforesaid, the present criminal appeal being sans merit is
dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
trial Court is hereby affirmed.

31. Record of the trial Court be sent back alongwith copy of this
judgment.

Certified copy, as per rules.

                              (SUBODH ABHYANKAR)                                  (ALOK AWASTHI)
                                     JUDGE                                            JUDGE
                          Vindesh




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 14-Jul-26
5:45:34 PM

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Dilip vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2026

Madhya Pradesh High Court