MP High Court Acquits Murder Convicts After Finding Trial Court Relied on Wrong FSL Report and FIR Authorship Was Never Established

A Jabalpur Division Bench set aside life-sentence convictions in a 2009 stabbing case, finding that the trial court used an unrelated FSL report and the deceased's FIR thumb-impression was unreliable.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh, acquitted Tulsiram Rajpal and Harprasad of murder and related charges on 30 July 2026, overturning convictions recorded by the Special Sessions Judge, Damoh in June 2012. The bench found that the trial court had, in a striking error, exhibited and relied upon a forensic science laboratory report belonging to an entirely different criminal case, and that fundamental questions about who actually lodged the FIR — and whether the deceased was alive when it was filed — were never satisfactorily resolved. These two failings, taken with wider gaps in investigation, persuaded the court that the convictions could not stand.

The 2009 Stabbing and the Trial Court's Convictions

According to the prosecution, on the night of 25 August 2009 at around 8:45 PM, Pyarelal Gadriya was performing Ganesh Pooja at his home in Madiyado, Damoh district, along with his son Bhagirath, his wife Haribai, daughter Prembai, and another son Kashiram. The appellants allegedly entered the house, abused the occupants, and then Tulsiram stabbed Pyarelal on the left side of his stomach with a knife while Harprasad and Mohan alias Bacchu held the victim. Pyarelal died after lodging a report at Madiyado Police Station. A third appellant, Mohan alias Bacchu, died during the pendency of this appeal on 16 July 2014, and the appeal stood abated as to him.

Sessions Trial No. 418 of 2009 ended on 29 June 2012 with Tulsiram convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000, and Harprasad convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, also sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000. Both appellants, along with the deceased third appellant, were additionally convicted under Section 450 of the IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment each. Tulsiram and Harprasad appealed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Wrong FSL Report at the Heart of the Trial

The Division Bench's most pointed observation concerned Exhibit P/25, an FSL report that the trial court had marked in evidence, questioned the appellants about under Section 313 of the CrPC, and then cited in its judgment at paragraphs 4 and 24. When the High Court examined that report during the writing of its judgment, it found that Ex. P/25 concerned a sickle seized from one Motilal and lathis seized from persons named Rajendra and Mathura — with injured persons listed as Jahar and Sitarani. None of those names appear in the present case.

The bench recorded its reaction plainly: “We are really surprised as to how this negligence was caused by the learned trial Court.” What compounded the problem was that neither the prosecution nor the defence pointed out this error at any stage of the trial, not during arguments, not at any intermediate hearing. The bench held that the judgment was not written carefully, and that this ground alone was sufficient to set aside the conviction. It nonetheless proceeded to examine the remaining evidence on its merits.

The FSL report that was actually relevant — Ex. P/24, concerning the knife seized from Tulsiram — stated that no human blood was found on the knife. The post-mortem doctor, Dr. Prabhudayal Kargaiya (PW-5), had separately examined that knife on a police query in October 2009 and opined that an injury like Pyarelal's could have been caused by it. The bench weighed these two pieces of evidence together with the other evidence on record.

Whether Pyarelal Was Alive When the FIR Was Filed

A second cluster of serious anomalies surrounded the FIR itself, marked Ex. P/21. The investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar Nanama (PW-14), admitted in cross-examination that the report was not written in his handwriting — it was written by some other police staff whose identity he could not name even after the court adjourned the matter and gave him time to find out. On the next date he stated the FIR was written by a constable but he could not remember which one. The person who actually wrote the report never signed it and was never examined as a witness.

This procedural gap became significant because of a factual dispute: Bhagirath (PW-1), the son of the deceased, stated that his father Pyarelal died after coming out of the police station. His mother Haribai (PW-3) stated that Pyarelal was alive until he reached the hospital. Dr. Khemchand Arya (PW-15), the medical officer at the Primary Health Centre, recorded that Pyarelal was brought to the centre dead at 9:00 PM on 25 August 2009, his body already cold.

The FIR bears Pyarelal's thumb impression, not his signature. PW-14 acknowledged that the note “thumb impression of Pyarelal” was not written by him either. Bhagirath (PW-1) explained in cross-examination that his father did not have the energy to hold a pen and so a policeman caught Pyarelal's hand and affixed the thumb impression. Haribai (PW-3) confirmed this account. Yet the bench found these explanations insufficient. Because the prosecution had not filed the medical examination requisition form along with the charge-sheet — a mandatory document PW-14 admitted was missing — the defence argument gained traction: that Pyarelal had already died before the FIR was recorded and the thumb impression was obtained by an unknown police officer from a dead man.

The bench concluded that it was “highly doubtful as to who recorded the FIR” and that it was not proved on the evidence that the thumb impression on Ex. P/21 was actually Pyarelal's.

The Eye-Witness Evidence and Its Weaknesses

The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. Of these, Jeet Singh alias Jeetu (PW-2), Suresh Gadriya (PW-4), Gyani (PW-7), and Bhajman Lodhi (PW-11) were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The three core eye-witnesses were Bhagirath (PW-1), Haribai (PW-3), and Prembai (PW-6).

The defence argued that at the time of the incident there was no electricity supply, it had been raining, and the location was dark. All three eye-witnesses acknowledged the darkness in cross-examination. Bhagirath admitted in Para 13 of his cross-examination that his face was turned towards the Ganesha idol with folded hands while his father stood beside him, and that only the light from a small lamp (dibbi) placed about four feet away provided illumination. Haribai confirmed a power cut and heavy rain but said her house was lit by the dibbi. Prembai stated in Para 4 that there was much darkness outside but she saw three persons.

The defence further pointed to Bhagirath's cross-examination in Para 8, where he disclosed a pre-existing quarrel between Ghanshyam and Tulsiram over a theft case involving Kashiram, suggesting a motive for false implication. Haribai (PW-3) had stated in Paras 15 and 16 of her cross-examination that the dispute involved other persons as well as the deceased. PW-14 also admitted that many important Rojnamcha Sanha entries were not made during the investigation.

The Section 161 CrPC statements of Bhagirath (PW-1), Prembai (PW-6), and Ghanshyam (PW-10) were recorded 15 to 30 days after the incident, which the defence had flagged as another infirmity.

The Bench's Overall Assessment

Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh, writing for the bench, drew together these threads. The use of an entirely unrelated FSL report as evidence against the appellants was described as a failure to write the trial judgment carefully. The missing medical examination requisition was treated as lending credibility to the defence's position that the deceased had not actually lodged the FIR. The inability of the investigating officer to identify who wrote the most foundational document in the case — the FIR itself — was characterised as a serious lapse. Taken together, the bench held that the prosecution evidence was riddled with serious anomalies and that the conviction and sentence of the appellants could not be maintained.

By the time of the High Court's order, Tulsiram Rajpal had served actual custody of 7 years and 14 days, and Harprasad had served 3 years, 3 months, and 16 days, as confirmed by custody reports from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sagar.

Order

The Division Bench allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2012 and acquitted Tulsiram Rajpal and Harprasad of all charges under Sections 302, 302 read with 34, and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned trial court for compliance, and that case property be disposed of as per the directions of the trial court.