STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus PHOOLCHAND RATHORE

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
   [2023] 5 S.C.R. 601
601
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
PHOOLCHAND RATHORE
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1315-1316 of 2023)
APRIL 28, 2023
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, MANOJ MISRA AND
ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 201 – Acquittal under –
Prosecution rested its case on the circumstances, inter-alia, (a) the
accused bore a grudge against his wife for keeping jewellery with
her sister (PW8); (b) on the fateful day, during day time, accused
on that count, quarrelled with PW8 and threatened to kill the
deceased and set the house on fire; (c) in the evening of that fateful
day, the accused quarrelled with the deceased and took her with
him on a bicycle, while extending threats that he would kill her; (d)
later, that evening, the deceased was found in a seriously injured
condition; (e) the deceased died on account of those injuries; and
(f) blood-stained clothes etc. were recovered at the instance of the
accused thereby making the chain complete – Trial Court convicted
the accused and death penalty was awarded to the accused – High
Court gave accused benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted
him – On appeal, held: Reason of the quarrel that deceased had
kept her jewellery with her sister (PW8) was not found proved – As
prosecution evidence revealed that jewellery was returned back –
Thus, prosecution failed to prove motive – There appears no reason
for accused to carry stones from the spot and hide them in his hut
and leaving blood-stained stones near railway line – As far as blood
stained clothes are concerned, PW4 stated that her father (accused)
on return had washed those clothes and spread them to dry – How
could they be recovered from hut – So, the recovery of the blood-
stained clothes etc. was doubtful – Police prepared two
memorandums (disclosure statement, as per the memorandum (Ex.P-
9), at Seoni Trisection, witnessed by PW6 and the recovery memo
(Ex.P-10), was prepared at accused’s hut near railway line at the
same time also witnessed by PW-6) – Both memorandums were
prepared at the same time and different places, meaning all papers
were signed at one go rendering the entire exercise of disclosure
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
and consequential discovery/recovery doubtful – Alleged extra
judicial confession made by the accused to PW4 was neither
disclosed in the FIR nor in the previous statement of PW4 made
during investigation – Extra judicial confession also not proved
beyond reasonable doubt – Also, accused and the deceased were
noticed quarrelling with each other at about 1630 hours and soon
thereafter, the appellant took deceased on his cycle – As per
prosecution deceased was found injured at around 2000 hours,
there was quite a large time-gap for other intervening factors to
operate – Therefore, motive, disclosure, recovery and extra judicial
confession was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Constitution of India – Art. 136 – When it appears that the
High Court has on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a
legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case
and ignoring some of the most vital facts, acquitted the respondent
and the order of acquittal passed by the High Court has resulted in
a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice, extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may
rightfully be exercised.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The prosecution relied on the following
circumstances: (a) Motive; (b) Disclosure Statement and
Recovery; (c) Extra Judicial Confession; and (d) Accused taking
the deceased with him and soon thereafter the deceased was found
in an injured state [Para 24][618-G]
2. (a) Motive
According to the prosecution, the appellant and the
deceased used to quarrel because the deceased had kept her
jewellery with her sister. However, the above reason for the
quarrel was not found proved because the prosecution evidence
led revealed that the jewellery had already been returned back
much before the date of the incident. Therefore, to prove motive,
during trial, prosecution developed another story, which is, that
the appellant desired his wife to claim a share in her ancestral
property which resulted in quarrels. This motive neither appealed
to the High Court nor to this Court. [Para 24 (i)][619-A-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
(b) Disclosure Statement and Recovery
The disclosure statement, as per the memorandum (Ex.P-
9), was prepared at Seoni Trisection and witnessed by PW6; the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.