Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ratiram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17464
1 CRA-4583-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 4 th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4583 of 2018
RATIRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anoop Saxena - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
Heard on I.A. No.12803/2022 for suspension of remaining jail
sentence and grant of bail.
2. On making a query to learned counsel for the appellant that as it is
appeal of year 2018 is he ready to argue the appeal finally today, he submits
that he is ready to argue this appeal today itself.
3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if this appeal is
finally heard today.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No.12803/2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.
6. This appeal is filed by the sole appellant under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short ‘Cr.P.C‘), being aggrieved of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 4/16/2025
10:58:34 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17464
2 CRA-4583-2018
judgment dated 12th April 2018, passed by learned 1 st Additional Sessions
Judge, Chhatapur, in Sessions Trial No.38/2016, whereby, the appellant is
held guilty for committing offence of murder punishable under Sections 302
of IPC and is sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- with
default stipulation of three months’ R.I. but he is acquitted from the charge
of Section 294 of IPC.
7. In the same trial, co-accused – Baghirathi was also tried for the same
offence and was acquitted by the trial court of all charges.
8. The case of the prosecution in short is that Santram Ahirwar (PW-1)
lodged a report (Ex.P-1) on 14.10.2015 at about 6.00 o’clock which was
registered as Crime No.158 under Section 307/34 and 294 of IPC at P.S.
Khajuraho, that he is resident of Udaipura and when he was in the company
of Roshan Yadav and Bhagwat Patel, on 14.10.2015, in the evening, he
heard noise of shouting from the place where statue of Goddess (Devi) was
kept and when they reached the place of incident, they saw that the present
appellant Ratiram had assaulted the victim Balduwa with help of an iron axe
on his left temple (kanpati) with intention to kill him. Blood was oozing out
from the body of the victim. Bhagirath Ahirwar was also present there armed
with Ballam, was exhorting to kill him (victim) so that he does not escape.
When the complainant and other persons challenged the assailants, they ran
away. The deceased Balduwa was assaulted due to old enmity. Thereafter
Santram called 108 Ambulance by which the victim was taken to Rajnagar
hospital. Thereafter the victim was referred to Chhatarpur hospital. During
the treatment of Balduwa, he expired, the Police was intimated about the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 4/16/2025
10:58:34 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17464
3 CRA-4583-2018
death of the victim vide Ex.P-22. Crime No.158 of 2015 was registered
against the accused persons for committing offence under Section 307/34
and 294 of IPC (Ex.P-1), but due to death of the victim, the offence was
converted into Section 302 of IPC. During investigation, soil and Gadela
from the place of incident was seized vide Panchanama (Ex.P-10), an iron
axe from the possession of the present appellant (Ratiram) vide Ex.P-10 was
also seized on the basis of memorandum (Ex.P-11) of Ratiram. The soil so
seized alongwith other articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination
vide Ex.P-19, and the report received from FSL is Ex.P-20.
9. After charge sheet was filed, learned Magistrate committed the case to
Sessions Trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur framed the
charges, which were denied by the appellant – accused. After evidence of
prosecution during examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused person
abjured the guilt and his defence was that he is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the case due to old election rivalry. No defence witness has
been examined.
10. After recording evidence, the trial court has convicted the appellant as
mentioned in Para-6 of the judgment against which this appeal is filed on the
following grounds :-
(a) The prosecution evidence is contradictory and not reliable. The
appellant has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry.
(b) The medical evidence does not support the prosecution case.
11. At the time of arguments, it is also pointed out by Shri Anoop Saxena,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 4/16/2025
10:58:34 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17464
4 CRA-4583-2018
learned counsel for the appellant that while rightly acquitting the co-
accused person, learned trial court misread the evidence and due to
misreading, the present appellant has been convicted. He pointed out from
Para 39 of the judgment of the trial court, in which learned trial court has
recorded a fact that as per Ex. P-20, FSL report, it is mentioned that axe
which was seized from the possession of present appellant (Ratiram) was
having ‘human blood’ and same ‘human blood’ of ‘Group -B’ was found in
the soil seized from the place of incident and ‘Gadela’ (mattress) found at
the spot. It is submitted that there is no determination of blood group of the
seized axe. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant remained
in custody from 16.10.2015 to 12.4.2018 and from the date of impugned
judgment till date he is in jail. On the aforesaid grounds and arguments,
learned counsel for the appellant prays for acquittal of the present appellant.
12. On the other hand, Government Advocate for the State supports the
impugned judgment & conviction of the appellant, but Shri Gupta, learned
Government Advocate very fairly admits that F.S.L. report (Ex.P-20) does
not mention that the axe which was seized from the possession of the
accused – Ratiram was having blood of ‘Group-B’.
13. Perused the record and considered the arguments. First of all it is seen
that in FSL report (Ex. P-20), it is mentioned that axe was having human
blood. It is pertinent to mention that in the report (Ex. P-20) it is not
mentioned that alleged axe was having blood of ‘B Group’, which was found
on the soil (Ex.A) and Gadela (Ex.B). Therefore, it is apparent that report
(Ex. P-20) has been wrongly interpreted and used for holding the conviction
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 4/16/2025
10:58:34 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17464
5 CRA-4583-2018
of the appellant – Ratiram.
14. Coming to other oral and documentary evidence. It is seen that
Santram Ahirwar (PW-1) turned hostile whereas in the FIR (Ex.P-1) he has
reported that on hearing the noise he alongwith other persons rushed to the
place of incident whereas in Para-1 of the Court Statement, he has stated that
some persons came running and informed him that Ratiram (present
appellant) caused injuries to Balduwa with an axe. In this way, this material
witness has turned hostile. Although, the prosecution has declared him
hostile and asked him leading questions in para-2 of the statement, in which
he has stated that when he alongwith other persons reached the place of
incident, Ratiram (present appellant) was standing there having a blood
stained axe. In para -9 of cross-examination, this witness also states that at
the place of incident, many persons were sitting and ‘Bhajan’ was being
played on a loud speaker, therefore, even if someone had cried, nobody could
have heard the voice from a distant place.
15. Pyari Bai (PW-2), wife of the deceased, in para-1, of the Court
Statement has stated that Ratiram came and hit her husband. The prosecution
has declared this witness as hostile. In answer to leading question by the
prosecution, she stated that she gave statement to Police, in cross-
examination by defence, she stated that at the time of incident, there was
darkness as the sun had set, but she stated that she can see upto a distance of
7-8 feet and she also says that she cannot see clearly. Her age on the date of
Court Statement recorded on 29.9.1016 is mentioned as 75 years and the
incident was of the year 2015. Therefore, she must have been of 73-74 years
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 4/16/2025
10:58:34 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17464
6 CRA-4583-2018
of age at the time of incident. In Para-4, she has stated that Bhagwat Patel
came to her saying that she should lodge a report against the accused and
since she could not walk, therefore, she instructed Santram to lodge an FIR.
Therefore, it has became highly doubtful whether she actually saw the
accused – Ratiram hitting her husband.
16. Roshan Yadav (PW-3) has stated that the wife of Balduwa was
shouting “Daudo, Mar Dalo – Mar Dalo”. At the same time, Roshan Yadav
(PW-3) and Bhagwat Patel (Sarpanch) reached to the place of incident and
saw that Balduwa was lying on the cot. This witness was declared hostile and
has not supported the case of the prosecution any further.
17. Bhagwat Patel (PW-4), has stated that some persons were shouting
that Ratiram has hit Balduwa with the aid of an axe and when he reached the
spot, he saw that Ratiram was going with an axe. This witness has also been
declared hostile. In Para-7 of cross-examination, this witness has admitted
that the wife of Balduwa did not say that Ratiram had hit Balduwa. Thus,
there is no corroboration of the statements given by Pyari Bai (PW-2), wife
of the deceased.
18. Ramcharan Ahirwar (PW-6), son of Balduwa Ahirwar stated that
Ratiram hit his father with an axe on the left temple (Kanpati) and ran away.
The Police came and investigated the matter, but in para-4, this witness also
stated that Police did not put any question to the accused before him, neither
the accused persons gave any information to the Police before him. This
witness, who is son of deceased was also declared hostile. In cross-
examination, in Para-7, this witness has stated that when his father died, he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 4/16/2025
10:58:34 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17464
7 CRA-4583-2018
was in Agra and he was intimated on telephone by his cousin brother –
Kripal. Thus, Ramcharan Ahirwar (PW-6) is not an eye-witness, but a
hearsay witness.
19. Munnilal Ahirwar (PW-7) has not supported the case of the
prosecution regarding recording of memorandum under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act and seizure of an axe and he turned hostile.
20. In this case, statements of prosecution witnesses, who have deposed
before the trial, have been believed for convicting the appellant – Ratiram
but the same set of evidence i.e. statement of prosecution witnesses has been
disbelieved for convicting the co- accused and he has been rightly acquitted.
FSL report has been misinterpreted by the trial court. Main prosecution
witnesses have been declared hostile and evidenciary value of prosecution
witnesses, who gave answer to leading questions by the prosecution does
have the same value as they would depose on their own volition and memory
in examination in chief. Star witnesses i.e. Santram Ahirwar (PW-1) and
Pyari Bai (PW-2) made statements which are doubtful as to whether they
saw the incident or not. Infact, it is not proved by the prosecution that the
alleged incident has taken place before Pyari Bai (PW-2) or if she shouted
for help then Santram Ahirwar (PW-1) reached the spot after hearing the
cry. What the prosecution witnesses have stated in the trial court is
materially different from the version of incident, they gave to the Police
during investigation. Therefore, after considering the entire documentary and
oral evidence on record and looking to the judgment of learned trial court,
we find that this is a case where the prosecution has failed to establish the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 4/16/2025
10:58:34 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17464
8 CRA-4583-2018
charge under Section 302 of IPC against the present appellant beyond
reasonable doubt, hence conviction cannot be sustained.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and conviction under Section 302
of IPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section
302 of IPC. The appellant be released from jail, if his presence is not
required in any other crime number. Disposal of the property shall be as per
judgment of the trial court. Record be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 4/16/2025
10:58:34 AM
