Madhya Pradesh HC High Court Acquits Murder Accused Over Botched Probe | Slams Police For Planting Witness, Orders DGP To Act Against Fabricated Evidence
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh set aside the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances and relied on a witness who was "planted by the Police." In view of the serious lapses in investigation and fabrication of evidence, the Court ordered a departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer and other police personnel involved in the case.
The Court directed the immediate release of the appellants if not required in any other offence and mandated the Director General of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh, to issue appropriate guidelines for proper investigation. It further required the Government Advocate to furnish a list of police officials involved in the investigation for initiating disciplinary proceedings. The matter pertained to a murder conviction which, according to the Court, rested on inadmissible and unreliable evidence. The judicial findings also addressed improper investigative procedures, use of coercion on villagers, and the non-examination of crucial witnesses and telecom authorities.
The case arose out of judgment dated 11.12.2023 delivered by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla District Mandla (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2022. The trial court had convicted the appellants—Nein Singh Dhurve and others—under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment and three years' rigorous imprisonment, respectively.
The genesis of the case lies in the complaint filed by Lakhan Pandhre on 23.09.2021 at Police Station Bichhiya, District Mandla. According to the complaint, his son Rajendra Pandhre had dinner with the family on 20.09.2021 and stated that he was going to his house to sleep. When he did not return the next day, the family searched for him in the village and among relatives but could not locate him. Consequently, a missing person’s report was registered. It was mentioned that Rajendra was carrying his mobile phone (number 9301579738), which was found switched off.
On 25.09.2021, the dead body of Rajendra was discovered in Dobhan Wale Jangal, Raniganj, Bhilwani by his younger brother Matte Singh and others. The body was identified by the complainant and villagers. It was found without pants or underwear, and the private part was missing. An FIR was then registered under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against unknown persons. A postmortem was conducted, and the investigation commenced with various seizures, including blood-stained soil, scene photographs, and eventually, items from the accused based on their memoranda.
During the investigation, accused persons were arrested on 01.02.2022. Items such as an iron knife, gamchha, clothes, and mobile phone of the deceased were allegedly seized from them. Section 34 of IPC was added, and the charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, followed by commitment to Sessions Court.
Prosecution presented several witnesses. Priyanka Pandhre (PW-1), sister of the deceased, stated that Rajendra had gone to their under-construction house on 20.09.2021 and did not return. She admitted that he had a love affair with the daughter of appellant Nein Singh. She also testified that the victim's underwear and lower were missing at the site of the incident. However, in cross-examination, she admitted that the body was found two hours away from their house, and initially, villagers believed he might have been attacked by a wild animal.
Lakhan Pandhre (PW-2), father of the deceased, confirmed the registration of the missing person report and identified his son’s body. He stated that Rajendra’s underwear and lower were recovered from Nein Singh's house and identified by him. However, contradictions appeared when he mentioned that Rajendra was wearing a blue lower while the report erroneously listed it as black.
Matte Singh (PW-3), uncle of the deceased, stated that a green gamchha and VIVO mobile phone were recovered from a jungle at the instance of Sandeep, another accused. He confirmed that no conclusive evidence was available until February 2022.
Manno Bai (PW-4), mother of the deceased, noted that for about four months, police detained Nein Singh and Sandeep intermittently before Chain Singh (PW-6) was introduced as a key witness.
Chain Singh (PW-6), projected as an eyewitness, testified that he stayed at Nein Singh’s house when his motorcycle broke down. He claimed to have heard sounds and seen the accused beating the victim. However, in cross-examination, he stated that he had returned from Kerala and only came to know of the incident upon being informed by the police, thus contradicting his initial claim. This discrepancy led the Court to conclude that he was planted by police.
Suresh Bhatele (PW-12) presented mobile call details showing interactions between the deceased and the daughter of accused Nein Singh. But he admitted that he could not confirm who was using the phone numbers.
Postmortem conducted by Dr. Dinesh Kumar Taksande (PW-16) revealed that death occurred 4-6 days prior to the examination on 25.09.2021, indicating time of death inconsistent with claimed phone call records.
The Division Bench recorded: "This evidence is totally inadmissible and there is no completion of chain of circumstances so as to uphold the case of the prosecution."
The Court critically examined the testimony of Chain Singh (PW-6), stating: "He is not a witness of last seen or an eye witness. He was planted by the Police for which we shall be ordering a separate enquiry against the I.O. to be conducted by the Senior Police Official for making false accusation and planting false witnesses."
On the call detail records, the Court observed: "It is mentioned that phone of Rajendra was in contact with the mobile number of daughter of accused-Nain Singh from 19.9.2021 to 25.9.2021. However, in cross-examination this witness admits that...he cannot say that as to who were using those mobile numbers."
The Court further noted the improbability of the deceased using a phone posthumously, stating: "Science has yet not so developed to enable a deceased person to connect through mobile phone and talk to daughter of the accused person."
In assessing the postmortem findings, the Court stated: "No DNA was conducted for identification of a decomposed body."
It recorded significant inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, observing: "Though they have attached a motive...the prosecution did not deem it proper to examine Sonkali...to substantiate the motive."
Discussing police conduct, the Court stated: "If the theory of the prosecution is to be believed...then there was no reason for them to not to express their doubt on the appellants."
On the role of the Public Prosecutor, the Court noted: "It is a gross failure on the part of the concerned Public Prosecutor who conducted the trial."
The Division Bench concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence. It recorded: "Therefore, since the prosecution has failed to complete chain of circumstances and they have stooped down to implant witnesses which erodes the presumption of Police carrying out investigation in good faith, chain of circumstances is not complete and, therefore, impugned judgment of conviction dated 11.12.2023 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla District Mandla, in S.T. No.37 of 2022 is set aside."
The Court ordered: "Appellants be set free immediately if not required in any other offence."
It further directed: "The Director General of Police State of M.P. is directed to issue appropriate guidelines for proper investigation and institute proper departmental enquiry against the I.O. and other Police Personnel who were involved in the case, list of which shall be furnished by Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Government Advocate to the Director General of Police alongwith the certified copy of this judgment."
The Court mandated: "Let enquiry be conducted as to what makes them to implant false witnesses to take away life and liberty of innocent citizens and the report be furnished within thirty days thereafter."
Additionally, it ordered: "Record of the trial court be sent back."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Shri Devendra Kumar Shukla – Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Ajay Tamrakar – Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
Case Title: Nein Singh Dhurve and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-JBP:35161
Case Number: CRA-306-2024
Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal, Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
