‘Malicious investigation’: Madhya Pradesh HC overturns life sentence in Panna murder case over ‘fabricated’ evidence

The Bench criticised what it termed “intellectual dishonesty” by the prosecution in not initially exhibiting the scene of crime report, which was later produced by the defence.

The court ordered a copy of the judgment be supplied to the government advocate, with a request to the Director General of Police to initiate departmental inquiry against Inspector D.K. Singh, who headed the investigation, “for creating a fictitious document”.

“It will be for the prosecution to order [a] departmental enquiry against Inspector D.K. Singh for creating a fictitious document as discussed above and is evident from the evidence which has come on record,” the bench stated, adding that if Singh remains in service, authorities should conduct inquiry “after giving him an opportunity of hearing because prosecution cannot be allowed to fictitiously create documents so as to seek conviction of innocent citizens of this country.”

The court directed the DGP to circulate the judgment among all police personnel “that if any of the act of the police person is found to be fictitious on creation of forged documents then departmental enquiry can be initiated against them. This will be a warning to a police person to be careful while carrying out an investigation”.

Summarising its findings, the court concluded: “We are of the opinion that [the] chain of circumstances is not complete. There is no evidence of last seen, conviction at the behest of the police personnel who have conducted not only faulty investigation but malicious investigation as is evident from memorandums drawn by Inspector D.K. Singh so also the fact that memorandum were [sic] drawn as per the convenience of [the] Investigating Officer, impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”

The court’s scrutiny revealed glaring contradictions that exposed the fabricated nature of key memorandums. Inspector D.K. Singh purportedly recorded a memorandum from Raju Kushwaha at 8:30 am on April 5, 2017, at Police Station Amanganj, and another from Kamlesh at 9:00 am at the same location. However, a scene of [a] crime report prepared by Dr. Mahendra Singh, Scientific Officer, established that Inspector Singh was present at the crime scene, located 4 km away from the police station, at 8:30 am that morning.

“When Inspector D.K. Singh was present at the scene of crime which is 4 km away from Amanganj Tiraha, Baraj road towards the jungle then memorandum of Raju could not have been recorded at 8.30 am on 5.4.2017 at Police Station Amanganj,” the court observed.

The scientific officer’s report stated he received intimation for inspection at 7:00 am from the Police Control Room, Panna, and reached the scene at 8:30 am “along with SDOP Gunnor, Shri P.S. Dhurve, Inspector Shri D.K. Singh, Fingerprint Head Constable 83 Anthony Pasana.”

The Bench noted: “Thus, these memorandums drawn on 5.4.2017 at 8.30 and 9.00 am becomes inadmissible in evidence and are of no use”.

Chhotelal Kushwaha, the prosecution’s principal witness and brother of the deceased, admitted during cross-examination that police obtained his signatures on blank papers. In his testimony, he stated that the skeleton was scattered and could not be identified, and admitted “he does not know as to which proceedings were drawn because police has only obtained his signature”.

The witness also testified he received notice about the body recovery at 6:30 am on April 5, 2017 before the memorandums were purportedly recorded. “He admits that he does not know as to which of the document [sic] was made to sign by him,” the judgment recorded.

The prosecution built its case on two primary theories without substantiating either. First, it alleged Kamlesh Bai had applied for a job with the Women and Child Development Department, and that Raju lured the deceased by posing as a department official. However, the prosecution failed to examine Pradeep Kumar, an Assistant Grade III employee who could have confirmed whether such an application existed.

“Prosecution did not deem it proper to examine him to prove the most vital aspect of the case on which prosecution has tried to build its foundation,” the court observed, concluding: “Thus, [the] first foundation of [the] prosecution case is not made out.”

Second, the prosecution theorised that pesticide was administered to the deceased in a water bottle, but failed to establish basic facts. “There is no material on record to show that what [sic] was the odour, smell, pungency, colour of the said pesticide/insecticide so as to bring on record that it was odourless, colourless and would have been administered innocuously as is alleged by the prosecution. These physical attributes of the chemical could have been brought on record by simple test but prosecution failed to do that,” the judgment stated.

The alleged illicit relationship between Kamlesh and Raju, central to establishing motive, remained unproven. Chhotelal admitted “he had never seen Kamlesh and Raju in a compromising position nor Panthprakash had ever informed him about said illicit relationship”. He further admitted Raju “never used to stay back in their home in absence of Panthprakash”.

The theory of last seen by witness Ramzan Khan collapsed when he turned hostile. Call detail records could not be substantiated due to absence of certificates as mandated under the Evidence Act. “There is no telephone call location in regard to Kamlesh to show that she was also present either in front of [the] Women and Child Development Department, Panna or in the jungle where [the] dead body was allegedly dropped,” the court noted.