{"id":142461,"date":"2010-06-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-28T13:42:34","modified_gmt":"2018-07-28T08:12:34","slug":"jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                 (1)\n                                                                                        Cr.A.384\/2007\n                                                                                        Cr.A.594\/2007\n\n\n\n              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR\n\n\n       Division Bench: Hon'ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena\n                       Hon'ble Justice Shri N.K.Gupta\n\n\n                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 348\/2007\n\n\n                 Jeewan Lal Jhariya aged 70 years\n                 son of Bakhtoo Lal Jhariya\n                 R\/o Hulki PS Bargi, Tahsil & District Jabalpur\n                 Jabalpur (M.P.)\n\n                                                                          .......Appellant\n\n\n                          -Versus-\n\n                 State of Madhya Pradesh\n                 Through :PS Bargi Jabalpur M.P.\n                                                                         .......Respondent\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n       For the appellant:                 Shri H.S.Dubey, Advocate.\n        For the respondent:               Shri S.K.Rai,Government Advocate\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.594\/2007\n\n\n               1. Bishansingh @ Guddu S\/o Shri Chammu Gond,\n               aged 24 years, Resident Ramanpur (Munda Tola),\n               P.S. Bargi District Jabalpur (M.P.)\n               2. Ganesh Prasad S\/o Shri Chammu Gond,\n               aged 24 years Resident Ramanpur (Munda Tola)\n               P.S. Bargi, District Jabalpur (M.P.)\n                                                     ........Appellants\n\n                          -Versus-\n\n              State of Madhya Pradesh\n              Through: P.S.Bargi\n              District Jabalpur M.P.                                        .........Respondent\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n        For the appellant:                Shri S.C.Datt,Senior Advocate with Shri\n                                          Siddharth Datt, Advocate.\n      For the respondent:                  Shri S.K.Rai, Government Advocate.\n\n\n                                            Date of hearing:                    04\/05\/2010\n                                            Date of Judgment:                   24\/06\/2010\n\n                                            **********\n                                   (2)\n                                                            Cr.A.384\/2007\n                                                            Cr.A.594\/2007\n\n\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.\n<\/p>\n
            Since both the appeals arise of the common impugned<\/p>\n
judgment they are being disposed of by this common judgment.<\/p>\n
2.          Appellants have filed these appeals against the judgment<\/p>\n
dated 22.1.2007 passed by Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur<\/p>\n
in Sessions Trial No.248\/2006 convicting the appellants under<\/p>\n
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.200\/-.\n<\/p>\n
3.          In short the prosecution case is that Guddo Bai was living<\/p>\n
with her husband Shiv Kumar, the deceased, in village Munda Tola<\/p>\n
within the jurisdiction of police station Bargi, District Jabalpur. Shiv<\/p>\n
Kumar had received agricultural land from his maternal grand-<\/p>\n
parents. On 21.4.2006, in the early morning at about 4:00 a.m.<\/p>\n
accused Jeewanlal came to his house and asked him to accompany<\/p>\n
for searching his lost cow. Shiv Kumar went away with Jeewanlal and<\/p>\n
Guddo Bai kept on sleeping. At sun rise at about 7:00 a.m., son of<\/p>\n
Anandi Gond came to her and informed that Shiv Kumar was lying<\/p>\n
dead in the passage between Munda Tola and Tediya Nala. She went<\/p>\n
with him to the spot and saw Shiv Kumar lying dead. The blood was<\/p>\n
oozing out from his mouth and his tongue was protruding out. On the<\/p>\n
same day, Guddo Bai along with Kotwar Premlal and some other<\/p>\n
persons went to police station Bargi and lodged FIR Ex.P\/33. Marg<\/p>\n
Ex.P\/34 was also recorded. Inspector J.L.Barme (PW22) went at the<\/p>\n
spot, conducted inquest vide memorandum Ex.P\/2 and sent the dead<\/p>\n
body for postmortem examination to Medical College, Jabalpur<\/p>\n
where Dr.Pyasi (PW17) conducted the postmortem examination and<\/p>\n
found injuries on the neck, head, ear and left arm on the body of Shiv<\/p>\n
Kumar. In his opinion, his death was caused by throttling.<\/p>\n
Postmortem report is Ex.P\/19. On 22.4.2006, Inspector Barme
\n                                     (3)<\/span>
\n                                                           Cr.A.384\/2007
\n                                                           Cr.A.594\/2007<\/p>\n
arrested accused Bishansingh, Ganesh Prasad and Jeewan Lal and on<\/p>\n
their information, seized shirt, lathi, a rope, banyan etc.. The seized<\/p>\n
articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory and a report Ex.P\/39 was received. After investigation,<\/p>\n
charge sheet was filed against all the three accused persons and the<\/p>\n
case was committed for trial.\n<\/p>\n
4.          Accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false<\/p>\n
implication. According to suggestion put by them to prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses, it appeared that sons and brothers of deceased’s maternal<\/p>\n
grand-father entertained grudge against him because the aforesaid<\/p>\n
grand-parents had given land to him. Probably they killed the<\/p>\n
deceased.\n<\/p>\n
5.          Prosecution, to substantiate its case, examined 22<\/p>\n
witnesses. Accused also examined 4 witnesses namely Shekhlal<\/p>\n
(DW1), Son Singh (DW2), Bhagwan Das (DW3) and Ganesh Prasad<\/p>\n
(DW4) to establish that they were not in the company of deceased at<\/p>\n
time of his death.\n<\/p>\n
6.          Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon<\/p>\n
appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced the accused persons as mentioned above. Aggrieved by<\/p>\n
the impugned judgment of conviction, appellants have filed this<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
7.          It was no longer disputed that deceased died of<\/p>\n
homicidal injuries. It is also reflected from the evidence of<\/p>\n
Dr.R.P.Pyasi (PW17), Assistant Surgeon, Medical College, who<\/p>\n
conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Shiv<\/p>\n
Kumar on 21.4.2006. According to him, on examination of the body<\/p>\n
of Shiv Kumar, he found following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
      (1)   Contusion 3″x 1″ with nail mark \u00bd” semi lunar on left<\/p>\n
      side of upper park of neck.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                                                            Cr.A.384\/2007
\n                                                            Cr.A.594\/2007<\/p>\n
      (2)    Contusion 2″ x \u00bd” with nail mark \u00bd” semilunar on right<\/p>\n
      side of neck upper part.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (3)    Contusion 1″ x \u00bd” on right temporal part of scalp.<\/p>\n
      (4)    Lacerated wound 1″ x \u00bd” on right year dorsal part.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (5)    Contusion 3″ x 1″ on left upper arm.<\/p>\n
      Thyroid cartilage was ruptured. Traces of clotted blood were<\/p>\n
present in both nostrils and ears. Fecal matter was coming out from<\/p>\n
the anus. Injury No.(1) and (2) were caused by manual strangulation<\/p>\n
(throttling). Injury No.3 to 5 were caused by hard and blunt object.<\/p>\n
Injuries were antemortem in nature. Death was caused within 24<\/p>\n
hours from the time of postmortem examination. According to<\/p>\n
doctor, cause of death was asphyxia due to manual strangulation. It<\/p>\n
was homicidal in nature. Postmortem report Ex.P\/19 is also placed<\/p>\n
on record. It was thus clearly evident that deceased Shiv Kumar died<\/p>\n
of throttling.\n<\/p>\n
8.           Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted<\/p>\n
that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the<\/p>\n
evidence of Guddo Bai (PW1) who stated that accused Jeewanlal took<\/p>\n
away deceased with him in the morning, and other circumstantial<\/p>\n
evidence    adduced    by   prosecution.   According   to   them,    the<\/p>\n
circumstances relied upon by the trial Judge were not clinching and<\/p>\n
sufficient to establish that the appellants caused the death of<\/p>\n
deceased. There was no motive for appellant Jeewanlal to have<\/p>\n
committed murder of deceased. Presence of blood stains on the<\/p>\n
clothes of accused was also not sufficient to establish that it was the<\/p>\n
blood of deceased. Chain of circumstances sought to be proved by<\/p>\n
the prosecution was incomplete and insufficient to bring home the<\/p>\n
charge against the appellants. According to him, appellants were<\/p>\n
falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,<\/p>\n
justified and supported the conviction of the appellants.
\n                                   (5)<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                               Cr.A.384\/2007
\n                                                               Cr.A.594\/2007<\/p>\n
9.            We have gone through the entire evidence on record.<\/p>\n
10.           There is no direct evidence in the case. Trial Court held<\/p>\n
the appellants guilty on the following grounds:-<\/p>\n
      (i)     Appellant Jeewanlal called and took away the deceased<\/p>\n
from his house at about 4 o’clock in the morning on the date of<\/p>\n
incident.\n<\/p>\n
      (ii)    Relations between appellant Jeewanlal were cordial with<\/p>\n
the deceased, therefore, it was not unnatural on the part of deceased<\/p>\n
to accompany him.\n<\/p>\n
      (iii)   After 2-3 hours of his going with accused Jeewanlal, the<\/p>\n
deceased was found dead near Tedia Nala.\n<\/p>\n
      (iv)    It was undisputed that deceased died of homicidal death<\/p>\n
by throttling.\n<\/p>\n
      (v)     Appellant Jeewanlal furnished no explanation as to how<\/p>\n
and when deceased separated from him after 4:00 a.m. when he<\/p>\n
accompanied him.\n<\/p>\n
      (vi)    Appellant Jeewanlal failed to explain as to how the<\/p>\n
human blood stains were found on his banyan.\n<\/p>\n
      (vii)   Appellants Bishansingh and Ganesh Prasad failed to<\/p>\n
explain as to how they contracted injuries on their bodies which<\/p>\n
were approximately of the same duration on which deceased died.<\/p>\n
      (viii) Appellants Bishansingh and Ganesh failed to furnish<\/p>\n
explanation as to how the blood stains were found on shirt and Kurta<\/p>\n
seized from their possession.\n<\/p>\n
      (ix)    Guddo Bai, wife of deceased, mentioned the fact that<\/p>\n
Jeewanlal took her husband in the morning for searching the cow, in<\/p>\n
the first information report immediately after the incident.<\/p>\n
11.           Learned counsel for the appellant-Jeewanlal strenuously<\/p>\n
urged that the evidence of Guddo Bai was not worthy of reliance.<\/p>\n
Her character herself was suspicious and apart from that the
\n                                  (6)<\/span>
\n                                                          Cr.A.384\/2007
\n                                                          Cr.A.594\/2007<\/p>\n
evidence of last seen together being a weak kind of evidence, no<\/p>\n
conviction could be based merely on the uncorroborated testimony of<\/p>\n
Guddo Bai. According to Guddo Bai (PW1), at about 4 o’clock in the<\/p>\n
morning, Jeewanlal came to her house and told to her husband that<\/p>\n
his cow was missing and he should help him in searching it. She<\/p>\n
asked her husband not to go, but he went away with Jeewanlal. She<\/p>\n
then went to sleep. In the morning, a boy came to her and informed<\/p>\n
that her husband was lying near Nala and blood was oozing out from<\/p>\n
his body. She went at the spot and saw her husband dead. There<\/p>\n
were injuries on his hands and blood was coming out from his mouth.<\/p>\n
Guddo Bai categorically stated that there was no enmity or ill will<\/p>\n
between her husband and appellants Bishansingh and Ganesh.<\/p>\n
According to her, Bishan and Ganesh were falsely implicated. She<\/p>\n
also admitted that relations between Shiv Kumar and appellant<\/p>\n
Jeewanlal were also cordial and he used to come to her house.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel submitted that the conduct of Guddo Bai was<\/p>\n
unnatural. She did not disclose the fact that deceased had been<\/p>\n
called by Jeewanlal to any body, therefore, her uncorroborated<\/p>\n
testimony in this regard does not inspire confidence.<\/p>\n
12.        On perusal of the evidence of Darbarilal(PW2), it is<\/p>\n
revealed that when he went to the spot, he found Guddo Bai there. In<\/p>\n
the chief-examination of his evidence, he stated that at the spot<\/p>\n
Guddo Bai told her that in the night Jeewanlal had taken away<\/p>\n
Shivkumar from her house. In cross-examination, however, he denied<\/p>\n
that Guddo Bai disclosed to him the above fact near the Nala.<\/p>\n
According to him, she disclosed this fact when she lodged the report.<\/p>\n
It was admitted by Guddo Bai that Premlal (PW4) and Gendlal (PW5)<\/p>\n
of her village were present at the spot but, according to them, Guddo<\/p>\n
Bai did not disclose anything to them. Similar is the situation with<\/p>\n
Channulal (PW10) and Shiv Prasad (PW15) who deposed that even
\n                                        (7)<\/span>
\n                                                                   Cr.A.384\/2007
\n                                                                   Cr.A.594\/2007<\/p>\n
on their asking as to what happened, Guddo Bai did not say anything<\/p>\n
to them.\n<\/p>\n
13.           Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to<\/p>\n
the evidence of Gudda Gond (PW12), Sevaram Gond (PW13) and Shiv<\/p>\n
Prasad (PW15) who deposed that relations between the deceased<\/p>\n
and his wife Guddo Bai were not good because she had developed<\/p>\n
illicit relations with accused Bishansingh. According to Sevaram<\/p>\n
Gond (PW13) and Shiv Prasad (PW15), they several time caught<\/p>\n
them in the fields in promiscuous situation. It is apparent that Guddo<\/p>\n
Bai did not speak against Bishansingh and Ganesh; rather she went<\/p>\n
to the extent of saying that police had concocted the case of murder<\/p>\n
against Bishan and Ganesh and they had no ill will against her or the<\/p>\n
deceased. Similar was the situation with accused Jeewanlal. This, in<\/p>\n
our opinion, created suspicion about the veracity of the evidence of<\/p>\n
Guddo      Bai.   Apart   from   it,   Dr.R.P.Pyasi,     who   conducted    the<\/p>\n
postmortem examination of the body of deceased, stated that the<\/p>\n
death of deceased must have occurred within 24 hours of the<\/p>\n
postmortem        examination.    The        postmortem     examination    was<\/p>\n
conducted at about 2:45 p.m. on 21.4.2006. This indicated that death<\/p>\n
of deceased could have occurred after 2:45 p.m. of 20.4.2006. Thus,<\/p>\n
it cannot be held with certainty that the death of Shiv Kumar took<\/p>\n
place within the time given by prosecution. It is quite possible that<\/p>\n
his death might have taken place in the night of 20.4.2006. Since the<\/p>\n
evidence of Guddo Bai (PW1) does not appear to us to be of such a<\/p>\n
quality on which implicit reliance can be placed, we are unable to<\/p>\n
hold that the circumstance of last seen together of the deceased with<\/p>\n
appellant     Jeewanlal    was   proved       by   the    prosecution   beyond<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
14.               Next the prosecution has placed the evidence of<\/p>\n
recovery of clothes of appellants, stained with human blood. On
\n                                      (8)<\/span>
\n                                                                  Cr.A.384\/2007
\n                                                                  Cr.A.594\/2007<\/p>\n
perusal of FSL report Ex.P\/39, it is revealed that human blood was<\/p>\n
found on articles D,E,G & J which were respectively, stone seized<\/p>\n
from the spot, Kurta recovered from the possession of appellant<\/p>\n
Bishan, a shirt seized from appellant Ganesh and a banyan seized<\/p>\n
from the possession of appellant Jeewan. However, no group of blood<\/p>\n
stains found on the aforesaid articles could be detected.<\/p>\n
15.            In the case of Kansa Behera Vs. State of Orissa (AIR<\/p>\n
1987 SC 1507), Apex Court observed “that in the evidence of the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer or in the report, it is not clearly mentioned as to<\/p>\n
what were the dimensions of the stains of blood. Few small blood-<\/p>\n
stains on the clothes of a person may even be of his own blood<\/p>\n
especially if it is a villager putting on these clothes and living in<\/p>\n
villages. The evidence about the blood group is only conclusive to<\/p>\n
connect the blood-stains with the deceased. That evidence is absent<\/p>\n
and in this view of the matter, in our opinion, even this is not a<\/p>\n
circumstance on the basis of which any inference could be drawn.”<\/p>\n
16.            The situation in the present case also being similar; we<\/p>\n
are unable to hold that the presence of human blood stains on the<\/p>\n
clothes of the appellants by itself is an incriminating piece of<\/p>\n
evidence connecting the appellants with the crime in question.<\/p>\n
17.            Learned trial Judge held that the injuries found on the<\/p>\n
body of appellants were not explained by them, therefore, it formed<\/p>\n
a piece of incriminating evidence against them. Dr.Sheela Agarwal<\/p>\n
(PW20) examined the injuries of appellants on 23.4.2006 at about<\/p>\n
10:30     a.m.,   she   found   following   injuries   on   the   person    of<\/p>\n
Bishensingh:\n<\/p>\n
        (i)    Multiple abrasion on the right shoulder..<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        (ii)   Multiple abrasion on supra scapular region.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                  (9)<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                           Cr.A.384\/2007
\n                                                           Cr.A.594\/2007<\/p>\n
      At about 10:50 a.m. she found abrasions on the left clavicle<\/p>\n
lateral aspect of Ganesh and at about 11:05 a.m. she found<\/p>\n
abrasions on the left arm and infra scapular region of Jeewanlal.<\/p>\n
18.        According to Dr.Sheela, injuries found on the body of<\/p>\n
appellant Jeewanlal could have been caused by fall. In her opinion,<\/p>\n
these injuries were sustained by the appellants 58 hours before their<\/p>\n
examination. She admitted that initially she had mentioned in her<\/p>\n
reports the aforesaid time as 72 hours but subsequently she had<\/p>\n
corrected it and made it 58 hours. According to her, after<\/p>\n
examination when she calculated the time she mentioned 58 hours.<\/p>\n
It does not stand to reason that the doctor could have calculated the<\/p>\n
duration of injuries so precisely and with such exactitude. Initially<\/p>\n
Dr. Sheela recorded the duration 72 hours      i.e. 3 days before the<\/p>\n
time of examination of injuries that would mean at about 11:00 a.m.<\/p>\n
of 20.4.2006. It appears that this time was deliberately modulated by<\/p>\n
the doctor to bring it in harmony with the time of incident as alleged<\/p>\n
by the prosecution. Apart from that, the nail clippings of the<\/p>\n
deceased were not preserved which could have given some<\/p>\n
indication, if these injuries were contracted by the accused persons<\/p>\n
as a result of struggle or resistance put by deceased at the time of<\/p>\n
occurrence. The explanation of the accused persons is that these<\/p>\n
injuries were caused to them by police and also by fall. Even<\/p>\n
presuming that the explanation of the accused with regard to those<\/p>\n
injuries was not trustworthy, still this circumstance is hardly<\/p>\n
sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused in a serious offence<\/p>\n
like murder in the absence of other cogent circumstances. It is well<\/p>\n
settled that the circumstantial evidence in order to warrant<\/p>\n
conviction should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt<\/p>\n
of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
                                 (10)<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                          Cr.A.384\/2007
\n                                                          Cr.A.594\/2007<\/p>\n
19.         In Jagta Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 1974 SC 1545),<\/p>\n
Supreme Court held: “The presence of injuries on the person of the<\/p>\n
accused does create a suspicion regarding his complicity but that<\/p>\n
suspicion by itself and in the absence of other incriminating<\/p>\n
evidence would not warrant his conviction.” In Bakhshish Singh<\/p>\n
Vs. State of Punjab [1971(3) SCC 182], Supreme Court held:<\/p>\n
“The law relating to circumstantial evidence has been stated by the<\/p>\n
Apex Court in numerous decisions. It is needless to refer to them as<\/p>\n
the law on the point is well-settled. In a case resting on<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be<\/p>\n
satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent<\/p>\n
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Those<\/p>\n
circumstances should of a conclusive nature and tendency and they<\/p>\n
should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed<\/p>\n
to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as<\/p>\n
not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with<\/p>\n
the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that<\/p>\n
within all human probability the act must have been done by the<\/p>\n
accused.”\n<\/p>\n
20.         In our opinion, from the injuries found on the body of<\/p>\n
appellants, it could not be inferred unerringly that these injuries<\/p>\n
were sustained by the appellants in causing death of the deceased.<\/p>\n
21.         Another important aspect in the case is the absence of<\/p>\n
proof of any motive on the part of appellants. There is absolutely no<\/p>\n
evidence on record to indicate that appellant Jeewanlal had any<\/p>\n
grudge or animus against the deceased which could have led him to<\/p>\n
commit his murder. Though it has been tried by the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses to say that complainant Guddo Bai (PW1) had illicit<\/p>\n
relations with appellant Bishansingh and for that reason there<\/p>\n
occurred some minor skirmishes between the deceased and Guddo
\n                                    (11)<\/span>
\n                                                            Cr.A.384\/2007
\n                                                            Cr.A.594\/2007<\/p>\n
Bai, but no suggestion was put to Guddo Bai in this regard. It has<\/p>\n
been observed by the Apex Court in Tarseem Kumar Vs. The<\/p>\n
Delhi Administration (AIR 1994 SC 2585),” Normally, there is a<\/p>\n
motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating<\/p>\n
agency as well as the Court while examining the complicity of an<\/p>\n
accused try to ascertain as to what was the motive on the part of<\/p>\n
the accused to commit the crime in question. It has been repeatedly<\/p>\n
pointed out by this Court that where the case of the prosecution has<\/p>\n
been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on basis of the materials<\/p>\n
produced before the Court, the motive loses its importance. But in a<\/p>\n
case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for<\/p>\n
committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater<\/p>\n
importance.”\n<\/p>\n
22.           The evidence and the circumstances brought on record<\/p>\n
in the case though give rise to suspicion against the appellants but<\/p>\n
the suspicion whatsoever great cannot take the place of proof. The<\/p>\n
circumstances sought to be proved do not unerringly point to the<\/p>\n
guilt of the accused persons. In view of the fact that chain of<\/p>\n
circumstances has not been established by the evidence on record<\/p>\n
and further that the circumstances themselves have not been proved<\/p>\n
beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellants are entitled to have the<\/p>\n
benefit of doubt. In that view of the matter, we find that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the<\/p>\n
appellants.\n<\/p>\n
23.           Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of appellants is<\/p>\n
set aside. They are acquitted of the charges. Both the appeals are<\/p>\n
allowed.\n<\/p>\n
24.           A copy of this judgment be kept in Cr.A.No.594\/2007.<\/p>\n
      (Rakesh Saksena)                             (N.K.Gupta)\n          Judge                                      Judge\nb\n (12)<\/span>\n       Cr.A.384\/2007\n       Cr.A.594\/2007\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010 (1) Cr.A.384\/2007 Cr.A.594\/2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Division Bench: Hon’ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena Hon’ble Justice Shri N.K.Gupta CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 348\/2007 Jeewan Lal Jhariya aged 70 years son of Bakhtoo Lal Jhariya R\/o Hulki PS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142461","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-28T08:12:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T08:12:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2996,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T08:12:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-28T08:12:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T08:12:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010"},"wordCount":2996,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010","name":"Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T08:12:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-lal-jhariya-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-24-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jeewan Lal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142461","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=142461"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142461\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142461"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142461"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142461"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}