Fabricated Documents In Police Investigation Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction Based On Incomplete Circumstantial Evidence; MP High Court Acquits Accused And Warns Police Of Departmental Action
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani, recently set aside the life imprisonment awarded to two accused persons convicted in a 2017 murder case from Panna District. The court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and that the investigation was tainted by serious lapses, including disclosure memorandums that were found to be fictitious documents, as the investigating officer could not have been present at two locations simultaneously. Noting the absence of credible last-seen evidence, unsubstantiated motive theories, and call detail records lacking proper certification, the bench directed the immediate release of the accused and issued a stern warning to police personnel against fabricating documents during investigation.
The appeal arose from a judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, District Panna, convicting two accused under Sections 302/34 IPC and 201 IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment with fine, along with additional imprisonment for default, and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC.
The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence concerning the alleged murder of a man. It attributed motive to an alleged illicit relationship between the co-accused and to a pending application purportedly submitted by one accused before the Women and Child Development Department. The defence contended that the chain of circumstances was incomplete, that a key departmental witness was not examined, and that the “last seen” theory failed as the witness turned hostile.
The defence further questioned memorandums allegedly recorded at specific times at the police station, in light of a scientific officer’s report placing the investigating officer at the crime scene at the same time. The prosecution relied on alleged recovery of a mobile phone and call detail records. The defence objected to the absence of proper certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and to the lack of corroboration of tower location details.
The Bench observed that “firstly, the evidence of last seen is not corroborated. Ramzan Khan (P.W.15) has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case.” It recorded that the witness “denied that on 22.3.2017 at about 3-4 P.M. under a Sheesham tree Raju Kushwaha, Panthprakash Kushwaha and his wife Kamlesh Bai were sitting” and further “denied that later on he came to know of the fact that Panthprakash was murdered.”
On the issue of recovery based on memorandums, the Court referred to the scientific officer’s report and stated that “when Inspector D. K. Singh was present at the scene of crime which is 4 kms away from Amanganj Tiraha… then memorandum of Raju (Exhibit P/16) could not have been recorded at 8.30 A.M. on 5.4.2017 at Police Station Amanganj.” It similarly observed that “memorandum (Exhibit P/17) of Kamlesh could not have been recorded at 9 A.M. at Police Station Amanganj when D. K. Singh was present at the scene of crime.” The Bench recorded that “these memorandums drawn on 5.4.2017 at 8.30 and 9.00 A.M. becomes inadmissible in evidence and are of no use.”
Regarding prosecution conduct, the Court stated, “if prosecution displayed intellectual dishonesty in not exhibiting the scene of crime report… then when it was produced by the accused can be used by us.”
On motive and foundational facts, the Bench noted that “they did not produce any evidence to show that such application was pending in Mahila Bal Vikas Vibhag” and recorded that “first foundation of prosecution case is not made out.”
Concerning the pesticide theory, the Court observed that “there is no material on record to show that what was the odor, smell, pungency, colour of the said pesticide/ insecticide” and that “prosecution failed to do that for which prosecution itself is to be blamed.” On electronic evidence, it recorded that “call details could not be substantiated in absence of proper Section 65B of the Evidence Act Certificate.”
Applying the law on circumstantial evidence, the Bench reproduced that “the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established” and that “there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.” It ultimately observed, “we are of the opinion that chain of circumstances is not complete” and that “impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
The Court directed that “in the result, appeal is allowed.” It further ordered that “appellants, if not required in any other case, be released forthwith. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back. Copy of the judgment be supplied to Government Advocate who may request the Director General of Police to do the needful within his discretion. If any of the act of the police person is found to be fictitious on creation of forged documents then departmental enquiry can be initiated against them. This will be a warning to a police person to be careful while carrying out an investigation.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Vineet Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Ajay Tamrkar, Government Advocate; Ms. Nandani Chheepa, Advocate for the Objector
Case Title: Kamlesh Bai Kushwaha And Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-JBP:11261
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 12354 of 2023
Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal, Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani
