Roop Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 08-04-2026

<div> NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27466 1 CRA-471-2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH th ON THE 8 OF APRIL, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 471 of 2016 ROOP SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance: Shri Bhagirath Singh - Advocate for the appellant. Shri Manas Mani Verma Govt. Advocate for respondent State. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This appeal is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 6.2.2016 passed by learned II Additional Session Judge, Jabalpur in S.T No. 394/2014; whereby learned Trial Court has convicted the present appellant under Section 302 I.P.C and has sentenced him with Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of two months R.I. 2. Shri Bhagirath Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that present is a case of suicide as can be seen from spot map as well as evidence of P.W.-9. G.S. Rajput Assistant Sub Inspector. There was no gap or opportunity for the appellant to have hanged the dead body of his wife in a room which has been shown as spot 'A', cot is marked as 'B' and to come out of the room without locking it from outside. It is submitted that P.W.-9 Shri Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 09-04-2026 18:10:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27466 2 CRA-471-2016 G.S. Rajput, A.S.I admitted in paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 that when he had reached the place of incident, that time he had gathered first impression to be that of suicide. Thereafter in reply to another question which is part of paragraph 22, this witness stated that since room was locked from both the sides, therefore, he had not gone to the place of incident immediately. In reply to paragraph 23 though this witness stated that there were two rooms, out of which in one room there was a lock but it is submitted that two rooms have been marked as 'A' and 'C' in the spot map. Dalan is 'D'. No passage is shown for movement of a person from room 'C' to room 'A'. The only way to enter the place of incident is either from Dalan 'D' from the west side and then there is an exit from the east side from the place where the incident took place. 3. According to P.W.-9 G.S. Rajput, A.S.I both the exits were closed. Therefore, in paragraph 24 this witness states that when he had reached the place of incident he had asked the husband of the deceased to climb the roof. The roof was tied with nut-bolts and sheets. Since gate was locked from both sides, therefore, he got the sheets opened. Husband of deceased had gone inside and opened the gate from inside then Investigators and others had gone inside the room. 4. Thus, reading this evidence it is submitted that when there is no investigation to the effect and there is no evidence also to the effect that appellant could have slipped out from the gap which was between the wall and the sheets of the roof, it is evident that deceased had gone inside the room where the incident took place, locked both the doors of the room and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 09-04-2026 18:10:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27466 3 CRA-471-2016 thereafter committed suicide. Thus, whole theory of prosecution that appellant committed murder is based on the sketchy evidence of P.W.-8 Dr. Ravindra Gupta, who has admitted in cross-examination that the circumstances which have been pointed out by him would have arisen otherwise. Thus, it is submitted that the present is a case of suicide. No evidence of abetment has been produced so as to fulfill the requirement of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, present is a case of acquittal. 5. Shri Manas Mani Verma, Govt. Advocate in his turn submits that in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has recorded a finding that in paragraph 27 P.W.9 G.S. Rajput, A.S.I stated that where the deceased was hanging and between the room of her husband there was a passage. There was a gap of about 1 foot between the wall and the roof-sheet and, therefore, it is submitted that appellant could have escaped from that gap after committing the offence. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, P.W. -8 Dr. Ravindra Gupta who conducted postmortem; he stated in his opinion that he had found strangulation because of ligature mark. He termed the death to be homicidal. In paragraph 7, he has given reasons for his finding that are suggestive of death by strangulation and homicidal nature, viz., there were abrasions below and above the ligature mark coupled with a contusion. Trachea was burst. There were abrasions on both the hands and wrists and he stated that single turn of ligature with symmetry knot without support of mechanical device is against the suicidal death. Query report is Ex. P-8, postmortem report is Ex. P-7. In the postmortem report Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 09-04-2026 18:10:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27466 4 CRA-471-2016 (Ex. P-7), it is mentioned that in my opinion the cause of death is ligature strangulation (homicidal) time since death at time of autopsy was within 36 hours at the time of autopsy. Query report was obtained on 4.6.2014, i.e., after more than a month of the postmortem. However, in cross-examination P.W-8 Dr. Ravindra Gupta admitted that the injuries which are mentioned in his postmortem report could have been caused during transport of the dead body. He further admits in paragraph 9 that there are six major reasons for asphyxia. Then he states that there can be several reasons for asphyxia and then further admits that he had not examined and written that whether the rope which was found tied against the body of the deceased was capable of bearing how much load? 7. In paragraph 11 this witness admits that rope or ligature mark was tied to an object which was never sent to him. This witness admits that rope which was brought by the Police was examined but from where Police brought that rope cannot be said by him. He admits that there is no identification of the rope in the postmortem requisition form. In paragraph 12 this doctor admits that during transportation of dead body abrasions and scratches which were found in the body could have been contacted. 8. Learned trial Court asked him as to how many injuries were antemortem and how many were postmortem, then doctor gave his opinion but these facts are not mentioned in the postmortem report. In paragraph 12 he admits that about the abrasions on body he cannot say as to whether they were antemortem or postmortem. In paragraph 13 of cross-examination this witness admits that if a person who is committing suicide gets unnerved Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 09-04-2026 18:10:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27466 5 CRA-471-2016 while hanging and tries to get rid of the noose then he can sustain injuries as were found on the throat so also on the hands of the deceased. 9. P.W.-9 G.S. Rajput though in an answer to the query by the Court stated that there were two rooms and on one room there was a lock from outside. But this witness has not stated that room which was the scene of occurrence was locked from any side. I.O was required to give specific evidence that the room where incident took place was locked from outside to prove that appellant after giving effect to the incident could have escaped from another door and locked the same. In fact in the spot map it is no where mentioned contrary to the court statements as to which room was locked. There is no iota of averment that the gap between the sheet and the side wall of the room said to be about 1 foot was ever measured by the I.O. because there is no such mention of dimensions in the spot map. He orally stated that the gap was 1 foot but then he was required to prove that from a gap of 1 foot a person after giving effect to the incident could have escaped. Had that been the factum of the case then there was no need for the I.O to have directed the husband of the deceased or other person to open the nut-bolts of the roof but could have slipped one of the persons from that alleged gap to gain access to the place of incident. 10. When all these facts are taken into consideration, then onus was on the prosecution that appellant was guilty. He committed murder and then after hanging his wife in the room escaped that room, came to Police Station to lodge a report and then when Police personnel and other persons reached the spot, room was accessible as it was locked from one side and that lock Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 09-04-2026 18:10:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27466 6 CRA-471-2016 could have been broken open to give access to the place of incident. But none of these circumstances is available in the present case. There is no direct evidence. There is no evidence to complete the chain of circumstances. When tested in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine 744) then we do not find a single circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused, leave alone, a chain of circumstances fully establishing the guilt of the accused and excluding every possible hypothesis, except that of guilt. 11. When these facts are taken into consideration along with the ratio of law, we are of the opinion that learned trial Court erred in recording a finding of conviction without any justification. Learned trial Court appears to have ventured beyond the evidence and has failed to read the evidence in correct perspective. We will be failing in our duty if we fail to observe that learned trial Court was viewing the case with a jaundiced eye. It did not bother to see that whether chain of circumstances is complete or not . It did not bother to venture to examine as to which of the rooms was locked from the outside as stated by I.O. (P.W-9) G.S. Rajput, A.S.I. It failed to examine as to the room which was said to be locked gave access to the place of incident or not and when there is no material then only on the basis of oral testimony of I.O. believing him to be an encyclopedia with an elephant memory without being supported with any documentary evidence, trial Court in real terms aided in doing justice to the party. We are reminded of what learned trial Court has recorded in its judgment in paragraph 42 referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (AIR 1998 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 09-04-2026 18:10:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27466 7 CRA-471-2016 SC 1998) that "It is the responsibility of the Court that benefit of doubt should be given to the accused party but when there is no element of doubt then it is the duty of the Court to examine that not only an innocent is not punished but the guilty be not left out." However, in our opinion, when chain of circumstances is not completed, then the trial Court erred in recording a finding of conviction which is contrary to the evidence which has come on record. We are constrained to observe that trial Court asked several questions to the witnesses and elucidated those responses which were suiting the frame of mind of the trial court rather than independently and dispassionately examining the evidence which has come on record. Such kind of treatment given to the facts and appreciation of evidence cannot be given a stamp of approval. The trial Court in our opinion is not precluded from putting question but it cannot accept the replies which are not supported with the investigation documents. 12. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment is set aside. Appeal is allowed. State shall bear cost of this appeal which is quantified at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands) which shall be payable in favour of appellant. The amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited in the account of appellant but he will be entitled to invest the same in monthly income scheme for five years so that he can get recurring income to establish himself after such a long period of incarceration. (VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 09-04-2026 18:10:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27466 8 CRA-471-2016 VKT Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 09-04-2026 18:10:47</div>