'Negligence By Trial Court': MP High Court Quashes 2009 Murder Conviction After Noting FSL Report Pertained To Unrelated Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted two men convicted of murder in 2009, observing that the FSL report relied on by the trial court pertained to another case expressing its surprise at trial court's negligence in relying upon the document. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 320]

Examining the evidence on merits, the division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh further observed that there was a pivotal dispute of fact on whether the deceased was alive while the FIR was registered or whether some police officers obtained his thumb impressions on the FIR while it was lodged by a family member. 

"It is further seen that learned trial Court has sought explanation in question No.88 about FSL report (Ex.P/25) from the appellants in examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. but FSL report (Ex.P/25) is not concerning this case. Learned trial court has further used this piece of evidence in its judgment in Para-4 & 24. We are really surprised as to how this negligence was caused by the learned trial Court. It is surprising that neither party at the time of final arguments or any stage of trial, argued this point, therefore we find that judgment of the trial Court was not written carefully and only on this ground alone judgment can be set aside but we propose to evaluate the other evidence on merit also". 

The bench, after examining the evidence on merits, observed:

"The trial Court has wrongly relied on some unrelated document (Ex.P/25) carelessly and it is one of the piece of evidence on the basis of which, accused persons have been convicted". 

Per the facts, the deceased lodged a report on August 25, 2009, that while he was doing Ganesh Pooja at his house with his family, the appellants entered his house and abused him in filthy language. Thereafter, two of the appellants caught the deceased, and one stabbed the deceased with a knife on the left side of his stomach, resulting in his death after lodging an FIR. 

Three men were convicted by the Trial Court, including accused Tulsiram, Harprasad and Mohan(deceased). The counsel for the appellants claimed that they were wrongly convicted. They claimed that at the time of the incident, the electricity supply was cut off, with no other source of light. It was further claimed that two of the prosecution witnesses were not at the incident spot and were busy wth the Pooja and therefore were planted as eyewitnesses. Further, the knife claimed to have been used for the murder did not have any blood stain. 

The court noted that the prosecution had examined 15 witnesses. The doctor opined that the injury to the deceased was caused by a hard and sharp object and that his spleen was cut into two parts. The report also stated that the injury to the spleen, along with the blood loss, caused the death.

The bench also noted that the Trial Court has exhibited FSL report Ex p25, but it is regarding sickle seized from Motilala, lathis from Rajendra and that the injured persons are Jahar and Sitarani. The bench noted that the FSL report did not concern this case. 

Therefore, the court deemed it important to consider the facts and evidence of the case. The bench noted that there were serious anomalies in the case, including that the FIR was not recorded in the handwriting of the Investigating Officer and that it also failed to name the person who had written the report. The court noted that this was important as there was a dispute over whether the deceased was alive or not while recording the FIR, as the FIR contained his thumb impressions over his signatures. 

The court noted that if the deceased was alive, after filing of FIR, till he reached the hospital then the police did not filed the requisite medical examination which is mandatory document. The court noted that the non-filing of the said document along with the chargesheet again lends credibility to this argument of the defence that the deceased did not lodge the FIR and was deceased by the time, and that an unknown police officer obtained his thumb impression. 

Thus the bench held, "For the reasons mentioned above, this Court is of the view that conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be maintained due to the serious lapses in investigation and prosecution evidence. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The appellants-Tulsiram and Harprasad are acquitted from the charges under Sections 450, 302 and 302/34 of IPC". 

Thus, the appeal was allowed, the appellants were acquitted, and the impugned judgment was set aside. 

Case Title: Tulsiram Rajpal v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRA-1457-2012

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 320

For Appellants: Advocate Ajay Kumar Jain

For State: Government Advocate Abhishek Singh

Click here to read/download the Order