Madhya Pradesh High Court
In Reference vs Rajat Saini @ Sidhdharth on 6 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
1 CRRFC-4-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14614 of 2023
RAJAT SAINI @ SIDDHARTH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anurag Gohil - Advocates for the appellant .
Shri Yash Soni - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL REFERENCE CAPITAL No. 4 of 2023
IN REFERENCE
Versus
RAJAT SAINI @ SIDHDHARTH
Appearance:
Shri Manas Mani Verma & Shri Nitin Gupta - Public Prosecutors for the State.
Shri Kapil Pathak - Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
T h i s Criminal Reference and Criminal Appeal are filed being
aggrieved o f judgment dated 04/05/2023 passed by learned Seventh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
2 CRRFC-4-2023
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (MP), in Sessions Trial No.707/2022,
whereby learned Sessions Judge has held appellant guilty of charges
under Sections 302, 201, 489(A), 489(B), 489(C) and 489(D) of IPC and
has sentenced him as under :-
CONVICTION SENTENCE
DETAIL IMPRISONMENT IN
SECTION IMPRISONMENT
OF FINE LIEU OF FINE RI
302 of IPC Death sentence 1000/- 3 Months
201of IPC 7 years 1000/- 3 Months
489-A of IPC Life Imprisonment 1000/- 3 Months
489-B of IPC Life Imprisonment 1000/- 3 Months
489-C 7 years 1000/- 3 Months
489-D Life Imprisonment 1000/- 3 Months
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that present is a
case where death penalty has been inappropriately and arbitrarily
awarded only on the ground that appellant has a past conviction vide
judgment dated 29/07/2019 passed by learned Sixth Additional Sessions
Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No.13/2019 under Section 364(A) of IPC
a n d sentence d him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- as
contained in Ex.P/52 and also on the ground that in another case, learned
XI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal vide judgment dated 09/01/2019
in Sessions Trial No.226/2018 under Section 419 of IPC and sentenced
him to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/-, Section 420 of IPC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
3 CRRFC-4-2023
and sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.500/-,
Section 467 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of
Rs.500/-, Section 468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years
with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 471 of IPC for which he is sentenced to
undergo RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations,
respectively.
3. It is submitted that these two circumstances have been taken as
aggravating circumstances to order sentence of death penalty.
4. Shri Kapil Pathak along with Shri Anurag Gohil, learned counsel
submits that prosecution case in short is that complainant Jagdish
Ahirwar has lodged Dehati Nalishi on 14/07/2022 at Police Station
Khajuri Sadak, Bhopal that he is working as a Cook at 03 EME Centre
Bhopal. He had met Ravi Mewada sitting in the garden of the colony at
about 5:00 PM. Jagdish Ahirwar inquired about Rajat Saini who was
residing as a tenant in the house of elder co-brother Sanjay Ahirwar and
had not paid the rent, then Ravi Mewada said that he had already taken
his mobile phone and motorcycle and he was not picking up the call,
therefore, they had gone to the house of Rajat Saini. He further pointed
out that when they reached the house of Rajat Saini, they found it to be
locked from outside. They climbed on the rear wall and when peeped
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
4 CRRFC-4-2023
inside, then they found that a dead body was lying in the house. They had
given intimation to the police. After sometime, police personnel arrived
there, they had broken and opened the lock and when they reached
inside, they found that a half burnt dead body of a person was lying. His
face was covered with a half-burnt cloth. When they removed the cloth
then they found that the dead body was that of a neighbour Aman Dangi
who was identified by his brother Bhiyalal Dangi.
05. It is pointed out that there was injury on the body of Aman Dangi
and blood was also present. They had gone on the first floor of the house
along with the police and they found huge quantity of blood lying there
on the first floor. They found that dead body of Aman was brought down
from the first floor and with a view to suppress his identity, body was
burnt. Marks of dragging and blood were available on the floor as well as
staircase. It is mentioned that Jagdish Ahirwar raised a doubt as to the
conduct of present appellant Rajat Saini and stated that may be with a
view to suppress the identity of the dead body he locked the house and
ran away.
6. Dehati Nalishi is Ex.P/1 was recorded on the basis of which Marg
No. 32/2022 was registered on 15-07-2022 vide Ex.P/27. Station House
Officer on 14-07-2022 had registered Crime Number 0/2022 under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
5 CRRFC-4-2023
Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and, thereafter, FIR was registered as Crime
No. 306/2022 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against unknown
persons.
07. It is pointed out that during the investigation, after recovery of
dead body of Aman Dangi Naksha Panchayatnama etc. were prepared.
FSL team was called for taking photographs and preserving the place of
the incident. Seizures were made and thereafter search was made for
suspect Rajat Saini at his parental house at Raghavgarh. He was found at
home. He was taken in custody and his memorandum under Section 27
of Evidence Act was recorded as contained in Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/15.
Seizure of counterfeit currency vide Ex.P/6 is doubtful, because arrest of
the appellant is shown on 15/07/2022 but seizure of counterfeit currency
at Khajuri Road Police Station is shown on 19/07/2022 because as per
the procedure laid down even immediately upon arrest the accused was
required to give his Jama Talashi and police was obliged to take his Jama
Talashi and if any seizure was required to be made from his possession at
Police Station, it could have been made on 15/07/2022 itself and not
subsequently on 19/07/2022 which reveals that police planted certain
fake currencies to falsely implicate the appellant under Sections 489-A,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
6 CRRFC-4-2023
08. Appellant/accused was arrested. Hammer used in the incident
along with mobile of the deceased, his slippers etc. were seized at the
instance of the appellant. He was taken on police remand and
interrogated when he stated that he was printing counterfeit currency of
notes of Rs.500/- at his house No.586, Amaltas Colony. His printer,
computer and CPU were seized and notes were sent for examination to
the Bank Note Press, Dewas and after completing the investigation,
charge sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal under Sections 302,
201, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C & 489-D of IPC. Matter was committed to the
learned Sessions Court by the JMFC Bhopal on 11/10/2022 when upon
committal of the case to the concerned 7th Additional Sessions Judge on
27/10/2022, trial was conducted and appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as above.
09. It is submitted that there is no direct eye-witness account. It’s a
case of circumstantial evidence. Fact that appellant Rajat Saini was a
tenant in house No.586, Amaltas Colony is proved by Anita Ahirwar
(PW-13), who has proved agreement Ex.P/10. She has stated that
appellant Rajat Saini is known to her. She has a house bearing No.586 at
Amaltas Colony in her own name. On 03/06/2022 she had rented that
house @ Rs.5000/- per month for a period of 11 months. Accused was
residing alone. Jagdish Ahirwar is the husband of her younger sister who
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
7 CRRFC-4-2023
resides at Amaltas Colony in his own house. She had given a rent deed
Ex.P/10 in seizure memo to the Police.
10. It is submitted that firstly chain of circumstances is not complete
and secondly, learned trial court has failed to balance aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, therefore the judgment of conviction requires
to be and be set aside. In the alternate, it is submitted that it being not a
case which will fall under the category of “rarest of rare case”, therefore
alternate prayer is that if this court is not inclined to record a finding of
acquittal, then at least the death penalty be converted into one of life
imprisonment.
11. It is also pointed out that Ravi Mewada (PW-3) stated in his
examination-in-chief that he had a talk with Aman Dangi. When Aman
Dangi said that he is at the house of his maternal uncle (Mama),
thereafter when he again contacted Aman Dangi, then his phone was not
getting connected, then he had called Amir Khan (PW-15) who at his
instance had gone to the house of Rajat Saini. Rajat Saini had opened his
gate and had asked Aamir Khan to come after some time as he was
engaged in a meeting with certain doctors at his home.
12. It is also pointed out by Shri Gohil, learned counsel for the accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
8 CRRFC-4-2023
that case was closed for judgment on 28/04/2023 and the date of
judgment is mentioned as 04/05/2023. Therefore, it is not understandable
that how Ajay Kumar Khare (PW-22) could have been examined on
08/05/2023 when judgment itself was allegedly delivered on 04/05/2023.
It is also pointed out that Ajay Kumar Khare (PW-22) admitted in his
cross-examination that he had not produced any written document in the
Court to demonstrate that appellant is an accused under observation.
Even no material was put to appellant regarding testimony of PW.22-
Ajay Kumar Khare, Dy. Superintendent of Jail relating to Ex.P/51 etc.
therefore, now what is to be examined and what will be impact of the
report of Bank Note Press Ex.P/41 and seizure Ex.P/6 and what will be
the impact of seizure Ex.P/6 on the aspect of conviction under Sections
489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D of IPC and also whether the mitigating
circumstances, outweigh the aggravating circumstances, to convert death
penalty to life imprisonment.
13. Shri Kapil Pathak, learned counsel also places reliance on Section
298 of Cr.P.C. to submit that Section 298 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :-
“S.298 : Previous conviction of acquittal how proved –
In any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, a
previous conviction or acquittal may be proved, in addition to
any other mode provided by any, law for the time being in
force,-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
9 CRRFC-4-2023
(a) by an extract certified under the hand of the officer having
the custody of the records of the Court in which such conviction
or acquittal was held, to be a copy of the sentence or order, or
(b) in case of a conviction, either by a certificate signed by the
officer in charge of the jail in which the punishment or any part
thereof was undergone, or by production of the warrant of
commitment under which the punishment was suffered,together with, in each of such cases evidence as to the identity
of the accused person with the person so convicted or
acquitted.”
14. Thus, it is pointed out that none of requirements of Section 298 of
Cr.P.C., were fulfilled by the Investigation Officer (PW-18) to prove the
previous conviction. Neither the certified copy was provided as is the
requirement of Clause- A of Section 298 of Cr.P.C. , nor any certificate
signed by the Officer in Charge of the jail was produced as per the
requirements of Clause-B of Section 298 of Cr.P.C. , and therefore,
merely producing these judgments is not sufficient. It is even otherwise
submitted that appeals against the said judgments of conviction are
already pending.
15. Shri Anurag Gohil, Advocate at this stage of dictation, submits that
award of death penalty by the learned trial Court is contrary to the
provisions contained in Sections 211, 236 and 298 of Cr.P.C. It is
submitted that learned trial court had closed the file on 28.04.2023 for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
10 CRRFC-4-2023
judgment. Thereafter, on 08.05.2023, it examined the last witnesses, PW-
18 and PW-22, namely, Shri Omkar Singh and Shri Ajay Kumar Khare,
wherein they sought to prove previous conviction of the
appellant/accused. It is submitted that thereafter no questions were put to
the appellant/accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., thus vitiating the
statutory provisions.
16. It is pointed out that Section 211(7) of Cr.P.C. provides that
previous conviction of the appellant/accused, if it is the subject matter to
enhance punishment, or to make punishment of different kind, for a
subsequent offence and it is intended to prove such previous conviction
for the purpose of affecting the punishment, which the court may think fit
to award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the
previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement
has been omitted, the court may add it at any time before sentence is
passed. Referring to the charge dated 04.11.2022 and the subsequent
order sheets, it is submitted that learned trial court has committed a
glaring mistake in not resorting to the provisions contained in sub-
section (7) of section 211 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, without there being a
charge to the effect that trial court or the prosecution wish to take
recourse to the previous conduct of the appellant/accused, that cannot be
looked into.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
11 CRRFC-4-2023
17. It is submitted that section 236 of Cr.P.C. deals with previous
conviction and is in continuation to sub-section (7) of Section 211
Cr.P.C. It is provided that after the Judge has convicted the said accused
under Section 229 or Section 235 Cr.P.C., he is obliged to take evidence
in respect of the alleged previous conviction and shall record a finding
thereon, but no such finding has been recorded in the present case.
18. Section 298 of Cr.P.C. is also referred to point out that how
previous conviction or acquittal can be proved. It is submitted that even
provisions of this section have not been followed. Therefore, it cannot be
said that prosecution proved the previous conviction.
19. Reliance is placed on the judgments of Supreme Court in Madan
Vs. State of U.P. , 2023 SCC Online SC 1344 and Rajendra Prahlad Rao
Wasnik, (2019) 12 SCC 460. Reading paragraph 71 of the judgment of
Supreme Court in Madan (supra), it is submitted that it is the consistent
opinion of the Courts of law that it is the obligation of the prosecution to
prove to the court through evidence that there is a probability that the
convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. Undisputedly, the
prosecution has not placed any material in that regard, either before the
trial court or the appellate court. Per contra, reports by the jail authorities
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
12 CRRFC-4-2023
and IHBAS would show that there is a possibility of the
appellant/accused being reformed. Similar is the ratio of law laid down in
Rajendra (supra). Thus, it is submitted that death penalty handed over to
the appellant/accused needs to be modified.
20. Shri Yash Soni, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State
taking this court to the chart of aggravating and mitigating circumstances
drawn by learned trial Judge and referring to the judgment of Supreme
Court in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 684, submits
that appellant is not entitled to any leniency and specific attention is
drawn to Point Nos.2, 6, 1 0 & 12 under the head of aggravating
circumstances – (crime test), so also to the aspect of mitigating
circumstances to submit that if there is any circumstance favouring the
accused, like lack of intention to commit the crime, possibility of
reformation, young age of the accused, not a nuisance to the society, no
previous track record etc. the ‘criminal test’ may favor the accused to
avoid the capital punishment but it is submitted that since none of these
circumstances are obtaining in the present case a n d firstly, appellant
misused the position of trust which was enjoyed by Aman/deceased in
relation to the appellant and also he being an offender engaged in the
commission of another serious offence in the past, so also the inhuman
treatment and torture met to the victim which is reflected from the use of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
13 CRRFC-4-2023
a hammer in committing the offence,. It is submitted that in sub Para-10
in Bachan Singh (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when
the victim is innocent, helpless or a person relies upon the trust of
relationship and social norms, like a child, helpless woman, a daughter or
a niece staying with a father/ uncle and is inflicted with the crime by
such a trusted person then it will be deemed to be an aggravated
circumstance. Thus, it is submitted that looking into the past criminal
history, the aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating
circumstances therefore the conviction and sentence be maintained as
such.
21. Shri Manas Mani Verma and Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public
Prosecutors assisting the court, in their turn, submit that these
technicalities should not be allowed to come in the way of dealing with a
habitual criminal having past antecedents and having committed heinous
offence during the period of temporary parole.
22. On careful perusal, we find that CRA No.8570/2019 is pending at
Gwalior Bench of this Court and CRA No.3264/2019 is pending against
the judgment of learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST No.
226/2018 and in that case vide order dated 08-09-2023, the learned
Single Judge allowed an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
14 CRRFC-4-2023
suspended t h e sentence of t h e appellant. It is also seen that though
judgments were exhibited as Ex.P/52 & Ex.P/53, but trial Court
committed a grave irregularity in allowing photocopies to be exhibited
without production of certified copies of the said judgments. Moreover,
trial court did not raise any question under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. while
examining the accused to point out that Ex.P/52 and Ex.P/53 are the
material of his previous conduct against him.
23. In the light of arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
going through the record, it is seen that learned trial court has dealt with
various aspects to complete the chain of circumstances. The trial court
has noted that on the date of incident, prosecution has been able to prove
through Ex.P/10 which is a rent deed that on 03/06/2022 (executed on
10-6-202) house in question from where dead body was recovered was
rented out in favour of the appellant Rajat Saini by Smt. Anita Ahirwar
(PW-13).
24. Incident admittedly took place on 14/07/2022, therefore appellant
was in possession of said premises. The plea of alibi which is taken by
the appellant that he was not present, could not be established by him.
But we are of the conscious view that mere failure of the plea of alibi is
not a sufficient circumstance to uphold conviction and it is in fact, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
15 CRRFC-4-2023
prosecution which has to discharge its burden and prove their case
beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Second circumstance is that house lock was broken. It was locked
from outside. Therefore, it is not the case of the defence that the dead
body was pulled inside his house through an open access. In fact, learned
trial Court has dealt with this issue and referring to the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in Raju @ Raj Kishore Singh Vs. State of
M.P., (2017) Law Suit (MP)1944 (DB), puts a burden on the person
claiming to be owner of the premises to be discharged under Section 106
of Evidence Act. Similar is the ratio of law laid down by the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh in Suraj @ Suresh vs. State of M.P., ILR 2017 MP
1475.
26. Another circumstance is recovery of a hammer. This blood stained
hammer was sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. The
FSL report is Ex.P/48 clearly makes a mention of presence of human
blood on this hammer (Article A). Seizure Memo of this hammer is
Exhibit P/16, which has been proved by the witnesses Dilip Dangi (PW-
8) and Bhaiyalal Dangi (PW-12), who have supported the seizure. Thus,
presence of human blood on the hammer recovered from the house of the
appellant is required to be established by the prosecution.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
16 CRRFC-4-2023
27. Another instance is evidence of Aamir Khan (PW-15) supporting
the statements of Ravi Mewada (PW-3), that at the instance of Ravi
Mewada, Amir Khan (PW-15) had visited house of the appellant Rajat
Saini. He had visited the house of Rajat Saini who had come out and had
not allowed him to enter his house, saying that some doctors were
visiting him and he was in a meeting with those doctors. Neither any
doctor has been produced in defence nor it could be established that any
meeting was going on.
28. Another important link in the chain of circumstances is the burning
of dead body which was recovered in a half-burnt state from the house of
the appellant. Yet another chain of circumstance is recovery of
motorcycle bearing No.MP-37/MA-3718 CD 100 Delux of black red
colour which was seized from the possession of the appellant from his
house at Barbatpura, Raghavgarh, Guna. It is mentioned in the
memorandum (Ex.P/15) of the appellant that he had taken out petrol
from this motorcycle and had poured it on Aman Dangi so to suppress
his identity.
29. While going through the record, we find that there are several
inconsistencies in the record. Firstly, Investigating Officer (PW-21) was
initially examined and his cross-examination was over on 20/03/2023,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
17 CRRFC-4-2023
then he was re-examined on 06/04/2023, whereas, on 08/05/2023 Ajay
Kumar Khare (PW-22), Deputy Superintendent of Central Jail, Bhopal,
was examined, but accused statements were recorded on 27/03/2023 and
28/04/2023, as it contains sign and date put by the accused on these
statements as are available on record. Thus, it is evident that material
which was produced by Ajay Kumar Khare (PW-22) which was taken on
08/05/2023 was not put to the accused person.
30. The prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses. Jagdish
Ahirwar (PW-1) is the witness who saw the dead body after climbing the
wall of the house of the appellant along with Ravi Mewada (PW-3).
31. Ravi Mewada (PW-3) has corroborated the evidence of Jagdish
Ahirwar (PW-1) of witnessing the dead body in a locked house of
appellant Rajat Saini which he had taken on rent from Anita Ahirwar
(PW-13) vide rent deed Ex.P/10. Ravi Mewada (PW-3) also stated that
when deceased Aman Dangi could not be contacted then he had called
Rajat Saini on several occasions but he did not reply to his call, then he
had informed whole story to his friend Amir Khan (PW-15) and Amir
had gone to the house of Rajat Saini. Rajat Saini had opened the door but
did not allow him inside the house saying that he was in a meeting with
certain doctors. This statement is duly corroborated by Amir Khan (PW-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
18 CRRFC-4-2023
15).
32. Vikas Mewada (PW-4) stated that Rajat Saini is known to him.
Deceased Aman Dangi had introduced him to Rajat Saini. Aman Dangi
had studied with this witness, Vikas Mewada, in Class-XI at May Flower
Public School, Khajuri Sadak, Bhopal. Aman was residing at Amaltas
Colony along with his cousin brother Bhaiyalal Dangi. The deceased was
working as an agent of IRCTC for last two months along with this
witness. On 14/07/2022, he had received a call from Bhaiyalal Dangi
asking for the whereabouts of Aman. This witness had informed that
neither Aman had come to office nor he was with this witness Vikas
Mewada.
33. Pritam (PW-5) too has stated that he is working as a Security
Guard on the main gate of Amaltas Golden Mile Colony, Khajuri Sadak.
Rajat Saini is known to him. The accused had given his name as
Siddharth and said that he wanted to purchase a plot and in the name of
said purchase, he had visited the colony and then since May, he was
residing in the colony. Later on, he discovered that his name is Rajat
Saini. This witness also stated that he was given an allurement of a job at
a higher pay package for which he was taken on 10-07-2022 to Ratlam
along with Deepak and Ravi to attend seminar at Ratlam. They had come
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
19 CRRFC-4-2023
to Lalghati bus stop from where they had gone to Ujjain, and from Ujjain
they had travelled by train to Ratlam. At Ratlam railway station, Rajat
had said that seminar was since over, then they had come back to Ujjain,
where they stayed at Mewada Dharamshala and next day, after having
darshan, they had returned back to railway station to come back to their
house.
34. Deepak Mewada (PW-6) stated on the same lines as Pritam (PW-
5) has given his statement. Anil Devlashe (PW-7) stated that Rajat Saini
approached him four years back in the name of learning art of painting.
He stated that he is working as an artist in Women & Child Development
Department. On 14/07/2022 at about 4.30 Rajat had approached him and
asked him to get him a job and had also requested him to keep his red
colour bag and thereafter Rajat had left his house. He had given that bag
to the police which was seized by the police.
35. Dilip Dangi (PW-8) stated that on 14-07-2022 he had received a
phone call from Bhaiyalal Dangi informing him about the death of
Aman. This witness (Dilip Dangi) had come to Bhopal and had visited
Hamidia Hospital where police had prepared Mratyu Naksha
Panchayatnama. Safina Form i s Ex.P/12 containing his signatures from
‘A to A’ part. Death Panchnama is Ex.P/13 and also the receipt of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
20 CRRFC-4-2023
receiving the dead body after post-mortem vide Ex.P/14. He is also a
witness to the memorandum Ex.P/15 and seizure of hammer Ex.P/16. He
has admitted his signatures on these documents and also o n the Arrest
Memo (Ex.P/17).
36. Sunil Gupta (PW-9), Scientific Officer, who was working at FSL
Mobile Unit Bhopal, on receiving the intimation from Police Control
Room, Bhopal, had visited the site of the incident i.e. House No. 586,
Khajuri along with Photographer Narendra Shukla and Investigator Sub-
Inspector Shri P. Singh. He had examined the place of the incident. He
found the door of the house to be open. Some tiles were broken and
some were uprooted on the ground floor. Dead body of the deceased was
lying in a flat position. A half-burnt cloth was found on the face of the
deceased. His face was recognizable. A half-burnt plastic bottle having
capacity of 200 ml was found to be lying near the body of the deceased.
The smell of kerosene/petrol was emanating from said plastic bottle. A
blue colour cap was also found. At the gate, a left pair of shoes was
lying. In the room, a trolley bag was found in which a jeans pant was
lying. When this officer visited first floor, then he found that green
granite colour stairs were going up. Blood was found on the stairs. On
the first floor, a room measuring 15 x 10 sq.ft. was found. Lot of blood
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
21 CRRFC-4-2023
was found on the floor. There were marks of dragging. After inspecting
the scene of crime, he had prepared his inspection report Ex.P/19.
37. Dr. Smt. Kelu Grewal (PW-10) conducted Post-Mortem and found
that private parts were burnt to the extent of 1 to 2 degree. There was
charing effect starting from left side above the ear till neck and shoulder
extending to finger. From neck to chest and down below towards coastal
margin, 4 to 5 degree burn was present. Stomach had 1 to 2 degree burn
marks. Perineal region starting from thigh to neck and hip region to ankle
had burns of 1 to 2 degree. They all were antemortem in nature. She also
found a lacerated wound of 4 cm above the eyes measuring 4 cm x 1 cm
bone deep. On the right hand side there were multiple lacerated wounds
above 3.5 cm of ear, measuring 1.5 cm X 1 cm to 3.5 cm X 1 cm. On the
left hand side of the head, there was a lacerated wound measuring 4 cm x
1 cm oblong. On opening of the wound a depressed fracture was found
measuring 4 cm x 3 cm. There was another lacerated wound measuring 3
cm x 1 cm on the rear portion of the head. On opening of the skin it was
found that there was fracture of the frontal region to parietal region and 7
cm below the parietal region. A hematoma which was subdural in nature
was found measuring 5 cm. Dr. Grewal opined that deceased was
attacked. His death was caused because of the head injuries resulting in
cardiac arrest. Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object which were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
22 CRRFC-4-2023
sufficient in normal course to cause death. The death was homicidal.
Burnt clothes and other clothes were sealed and given to the Constable.
Viscera was preserved and sent for examination to FSL. Death was found
to had occurred within 24 hours of the reporting.
38. Constable Subhash Narolia (PW-11) had taken the body for post-
mortem and produced his duty certificate Ex.P/21 and dead body
supurdginama (Ex.P/14).
39. Bhaiyalal Dangi (PW-12) stated that he had seen Rajat Saini on
15/07/2022 at Khajuri Sadak. Police had interrogated him. Deceased
Aman Dangi was his cousin brother. He was residing with him at
Amaltas Colony. Safina Form Ex.P/12 was prepared which contains his
signatures.
40. Similarly, death naksha panchayatnama Ex.P/13 was prepared and
after post-mortem, dead body was handed over vide Ex.P/14. He also
stated that Rajat Saini had given his memorandum Ex.P/15 before him
and it contains his signatures from ‘B to B’ part. Rajat Saini had informed
that earlier he was facing a conviction for life in a matter of kidnapping
of a child. He was lodged at Gwalior Jail and was given 15 days parole
when he had come to his house. In 2017, he was caught selling
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
23 CRRFC-4-2023
counterfeited railway tickets in which he was convicted for 7 years. It is
also stated that accused Rajat Saini gave affect to the said incident so as
to camouflage his identity and he wanted to show to the police and the
jail authorities that he died of burn injuries so as to have a scot-free life
out of the bounds of the prison but when we deliberated on this aspect of
memorandum then there being no consequent recovery to substantiate
this part of the memorandum. We are afraid that this part of
memorandum is not admissible in evidence and therefore, it cannot be
used against the appellant.
41. Anita Airwar (PW-13) is the landlady who had given her house on
rent to Rajat Saini. Dilshad Ali (PW-14) is a furniture maker and he has
stated that on 16/06/2022 he had met, Rajat Saini alongwith Amir Khan.
They had a talk in regard to preparation of furniture including sofa set,
computer table, bookshelf and a couch. A deal was struck for
Rs.1,38,000/-. He had taken measurements on 17/06/2022 at about 4:00
pm he had taken the material in a loading auto when he had met parents
of Rajat Saini. When Rajat Saini said that preparation of furniture may be
postponed as he may change his house. On 13/07/2022 at about 8:30 am
Dilshad Ali had called Rajat Saini to seek his payment and when Rajat
Saini had invited him to Amaltas Colony. This witness further stated that
he had visited Rajat at about 11:00 – 11:30 AM, when Rajat had handed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
24 CRRFC-4-2023
over an envelope to him saying that it contains Rs.1,00,000/- and he
should not open the envelope and when he will get payment then he will
make payment and take back this envelope. On returning he had checked
that envelope and found that it contained notes of Rs.500/- each which
were appearing to be counterfeited. He had immediately returned the
envelope to Rajat.
42. Amir Khan (PW-15) who last visited the house of Rajat Saini and
was denied access despite good acquaintance saying that doctors from
Chirayu Hospital were visitors to him. This witness has also stated that
on the same day in evening at about 6.30 PM, persons of the colony had
informed that the house where Rajat was residing on rent was emanating
some burnt smell. At 7:00 pm when he reached his house then colony
guard had informed him that Aman was murdered and burnt.
43. Mahesh Sariyam (PW-16), Sub Inspector, who had seized a sandal
of one of the legs of Aman Dangi on which in English it was mentioned
‘Fashion’ from the possession of the present appellant and also
motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 37MA 3718 CD 100 Deluxe
which was of black red colour vide seizure memo Ex.P/18.
44. Rajesh Sharma (PW-17) is the witness who had given sealed body
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
25 CRRFC-4-2023
parts viscera etc. of the deceased after obtaining it from Hamidia
Hospital to Mukesh Malviya and Constable Lakhan Lal for seizure vide
Ex.P/22.
45. Omkar Singh (PW-18) is the Sub Inspector who had carried out
investigation in the matter. He is also the person who had registered Marg
No.0/2022 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. which is Ex.P/2 containing his
signatures and had also preserved blood stained soil and simple soil from
the scene of crime. He had taken samples of the blood on a bottle. He had
also seized a half burnt plastic bottle, a matchbox, a touch screen mobile
phone on which in English it is mentioned as ‘Redmi’ containing blood
stains and one pair of grey color sports shoes which were blood soaked.
He had also seized a half burnt blood soaked cloth and a purse containing
Pan Card, Aadhar Card of Rajat Saini and Aadhar Card of Suresh Saini
along with SBI ATM card and iron crowbar ( subble) measuring 154 cm
with circumference of 7 cm. He had also seized blue color pant in
presence of Jagdish and Jitendra Ahirwar and prepared panchnama
Ex.P/4. He had sent dead body for post-mortem. He had recorded
Rojnamcha Sanha No. 42 on 15/07/2022 at 00.20 hrs, which is Ex.P/26.
Then, from Dehati Marg, he had registered actual Marg bearing No.
32/2022 (Ex.P/27). Then, he had made actual crime registration No.
306/2022 under Sections 302, 201 IPC vide Ex.P/28. He had issued
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
26 CRRFC-4-2023
Safina Form etc. and recorded statements of Arjun Dangi, Gagan Dangi,
Dilip Dangi, Kapil Dangi and Jagdish Ahirwar. He had given PM Form
Ex.P/21 and thereafter seized computer, printer and CPU from House
No. 586, Amaltas Colony, Fanda, Bhopal and prepared panchnama
Ex.P/5.
46. Omkar Singh (PW-18) also the witness of Ex.P/32 which is
Rojnamcha Sanha No. 11 dated 19/07/2022 on returning to police station
in front of Jagdish Ahirwar and Jitendra Kumar, he had seized six
counterfeit currency of Rs.500/- each, details of which are given in Para-
9 of his deposition and also two sims, one of Jio Company along with a
touchscreen mobile of Vivo Company. This witness also stated that
earlier judgments in ST No. 13/2019 passed by learned 6th Additional
Sessions Judge, Guna in Crime no. 226/2018 under Section 364-A of
IPC were downloaded from the website of the High Court and were
produced as contained in Ex.P/52 and Ex.P/53 which is the copy of
judgment of XI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST No. 226/2018.
He had also obtained information in regard to the conduct of the
appellant vide Ex.P/54 & Ex.P/55 from Central Jail, Gwalior.
47. Pankaj Prajapati (PW-19) is the Patwari, who had prepared the spot
map Ex.P/11. Narendra Shukla (PW-20) is the Constable No.3860 who
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
27 CRRFC-4-2023
had taken photographs from his digital camera Nikon D500 which are
enclosed as Article B-1 to B-10. His certificate under Section 65-B of
Evidence Act is Ex.P/33.
48. Smt. Sandhya Mishra (PW-21) is the SHO. She stated that on
15/07/2022 she had sent ASI Mahesh Sariyam, Head Constable No.
1797, Mahesh Patel, Constable 2627 Jitendra Singh and In-Charge
Constable 37 Narendra Rajput in a private vehicle in search of Rajat
Saini to Ragavgarh. ‘Ravangi Sanha’ is Ex.P/34 and return Sanha is
Ex.P/35. Team had arrested Rajat Saini from his house at Raghavgarh.
He was arrested and intimation of his arrest was given to the family vide
Ex.P/37 and on return, along with the accused, return Rojnamcha Sanha
No.28 was filled which is contained in Ex.P/38. She had sent seized 201
notes of Rs. 500/- each to Bank Note Press, Dewas for their opinion vide
draft Ex.P/39 which was deposited vide Ex.P/40 and the report of the
examination is Ex.P/41.
49. It has also come on record that examination and cross-examination
o f Smt. Sandhya Mishra (PW-21) was closed on 20/03/2023, then in
terms of order sheet dated 27/03/2023 he was re-examined on
06/04/2023. When he had exhibited hammer (Article B-11), clothes used
to clean the floor (Article B-12), seizure of plastic boxes (Article B-13 to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
28 CRRFC-4-2023
B-20) etc. He also exhibited report of Regional Forensic Science
Laboratory Ex.P/48 and stated that on Articles A, C, E, F, G, H, I & J,
blood was found and Article ‘E’ which was mobile phone, Article ‘G’
which was burnt cloth and Article ‘H’ hammer were containing human
blood. He also proved viscera report Ex.P/49, but what is interesting is
that even learned trial Court Judge did not pay heed to the fact that Ajay
Kumar Khare (PW-22). DSP was examined on 08/05/2023 whereas
question under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. , to bring out the circumstances
obtaining against the appellant were put to him on 27/03/2023 and
thereafter, on 28/04/2023 additional questions starting from Question
No.410 to 421 were put to him. However, there are no questions put to
him in terms of the evidence of Ajay Kumar Khare (PW-22).
50. As far as submissions of Shri Anurag Gohil, learned counsel for
the appellant in regard to non-observance of Sections 211(7), 236 and
298 of Cr.P.C., it is true that sub-section (7) of Section 211 Cr.P.C.
provides for alteration of charge. We have gone through the order sheets
of the trial court and find that after framing of the charge on 04/11/2022,
there is no alteration of charge when prosecution had brought on record
history of previous conviction of the appellant.
51. Similarly, requirement of section 236 of Cr.P.C. has not been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
29 CRRFC-4-2023
fulfilled and no opportunity of accepting or denying the previous
conviction has been brought on record. It is equally true that provisions
of Section 298 Cr.P.C. have not been followed, either by Omkar Singh
(PW-18) or Ajay Kumar Khare (PW-22).
52. We may also note that against the judgment of previous
conviction, Criminal Appeal No.8570 of 2019 [Rajat Saini Vs. State of
M.P.] is pending before the Gwalior Bench of this High Court. That
means matter is sub-judice. Similarly, in the matter of conviction under
Section 419 of I.P.C. Criminal Appeal No.3264 of 2019 [Rajat Saini Vs.
State of M.P.] is pending at Jabalpur. There is an order of bail granted by
the learned Single Judge vide order dated 08/09/2023.
53. Supreme Court in Vasant Sampat Dhupare Vs. State of
Maharashtra,(2017) 6 SCC 631 [Review Petitions (CRL.) Nos.637-638
of 2015 in Criminal Appeals No.2486-2487 of 2014 ] has noted that the
offences relating to the commission of heinous crimes like murder, rape,
armed dacoity, kidnapping, etc. by the accused with a prior record of
conviction for capital felony or offences committed by the person having
a substantial history of serious assaults and criminal convictions is one of
the aggravating circumstances. Thereafter, laying down the principle it is
held that the court has to apply the test to determine, if it was the “rarest
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
30 CRRFC-4-2023
of rare” case for imposition of a death sentence. In the opinion of the
court, imposition of any other punishment i.e. life imprisonment would
be completely inadequate and would not meet the ends of justice. It is
further held that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an
exception. The option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot
be cautiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of
the crime and all relevant considerations. The method (planned or
otherwise) and the manner (extent of brutality and inhumanity, etc.) in
which the crime was committed and the circumstances leading to
commission of such heinous crime. Thereafter, taking facts of that case
into consideration that the victim was a helpless girl of four years, it is
held that aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating
circumstances and, therefore, Supreme Court refused to take a different
view in the matter and affirmed the judgment under review and
dismissed the review petition.
54. Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (CRL.) No.1 of 2022 In
Re: framing guidelines regarding potential mitigating circumstances to
be considered while imposing death sentences has dealt with Section 235
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. provides –
“After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the judge shall give
a judgment in the case. (2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3846231 CRRFC-4-2023
unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Section 360,
hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on
him according to law.”
55. Section 360 Cr.P.C. deals with order to release on probation of
good conduct or after admonition. Admittedly, that is not applicable to
the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thereafter, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has considered provisions contained in sub-section (2) of
Section 235 Cr.P.C. and noted that it provides for a bifurcated trial and
specifically gives the accused person a right of pre-sentence hearing, at
which stage he can bring on the record material or evidence, which may
not be strictly relevant to, or connected with the particular crime under
inquiry, but nevertheless, have, consistently with the policy underlined in
Section 354 (3) Cr.P.C. a bearing on the choice of sentence. The present
legislative policy discernible from Section 235 (2) r/w Section 354 (3)
Cr.P.C. is that in fixing the degree of punishment or making the choice of
sentence for various offences, including one under section 302, Penal
Code, the Court should not confine its consideration within “principally”
or merely on the circumstances connected with particular client, but also
give due consideration to the circumstances of the crime.
56. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Muniappan Vs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
32 CRRFC-4-2023
State of Tamil Nadu, (1981) 3 SCC 11 it is noted that –
“The obligation to hear the accused on the question of
sentence which is imposed by Section 235 (2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code is not discharged by putting a
formal question to the accused as to what he has to say on
the question of sentence. The Judge must make a genuine
effort to elicit from the accused all information which will
eventually bear on the question of sentence.
…………..Questions which the judge can put to the
accused under Section 235 (2) and the answers which the
accused makes to those questions are beyond the narrow
constraints of the Evidence Act. The court, while on the
question of sentence, is in an altogether different domain
in which facts and factors which operate are of an entirely
different order than those which come into play on the
question of conviction. The Sessions Judge, in the instant
case, complied with the form and letter of the obligation
which Section 235(2) imposes, forgetting the spirit and
substance of that obligation.”
57. Reference is also made to the judgment of a five-judge Bench of
Supreme Court in Mithu Vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277 in
regard to Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code and it is held that if the
law provides a mandatory sentence of death as Section 303 of the Indian
Penal Code does, neither Section 235(2) nor Section 354(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure can possibly come into play.
58. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Allauddin Mian &
Ors. vs State Of Bihar, (1989) 3 SCC 5, it is noted that –
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
33 CRRFC-4-2023
“10………. The requirement of hearing the accused is
intended to satisfy the rule of natural justice. It is a
fundamental requirement of fair play that the accused
who was hitherto concentrating on the prosecution
evidence on the question of guilt should, on being found
guilty, be asked if he has anything to say or any evidence
to tender on the question of sentence.”
59. It is held in case of Anguswami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1989) 3
SCC 33 that sufficient time must be given to the accused ……on the
question of sentence. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in
Manoj & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) SCC OnLine SC
677 Supreme Court noted as under:-
“221. However, despite over four decades since Bachan
Singh there has been little to no policy-driven change,
towards formulating a scheme or system that elaborates
how mitigating circumstances are to be collected, for the
court’s consideration. Scarce information about the
accused at the time of sentencing, severely disadvantages
the process of considering mitigating circumstances. It is
clarified that mere mention of these circumstances by
counsel, serve no purpose – rather, they must be
connected to the possibility of reformation and assist
principled judicial reasoning (as required under S. 235(2)
CrPC). Constrained by this lack of assistance, this court
(as mentioned above) in Rajesh Kumar has even gone so
far as to hold that the very fact that the state had not given
any evidence to show that the convict was beyond reform
and rehabilitation was a mitigating circumstance, in itself.
****
239 It is unfortunate to note that both the trial Court, and
High Court, failed to provide an effective sentencing
hearing to the accused, at the relevant stage, which is a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
34 CRRFC-4-2023
right under Section 235(2) CrPC recognised by this court
in several cases.120 In fact, it was argued by the accused
that the trial court in contravention of this court’s
judgments121, had proceeded to hear on sentencing
almost immediately, depriving the accused of the
opportunity to put forth their case for a less stringent
sentence. The trial court order on sentencing, records in
passing – the plea of ‘young age’ and ‘socio-economic
factors’ as mitigating circumstances, but reflects, at best, a
mechanical consideration of the same. Swayed by the
brutality of the crime and “shock of the collective and
judicial conscience”, the High Court affirmed imposition
of the death penalty solely on the basis of the aggravating
circumstances of the crime, with negligible consideration
of mitigating circumstances of the criminal. This is in
direct contravention of Bachan Singh.”
60. Supreme Court in paragraph 23 of this judgment in S uo Motu
Writ Petition (CRL.) No.1 of 2022 observed as under:-
“23. In the light of the above, there exists a clear conflict of
opinions by two sets of three judge bench decisions on the subject.
As noticed before, this court in Bachan Singh had taken into
consideration the fairness afforded to a convict by a separate
hearing, as an important safeguard to uphold imposition of death
sentence in the rarest of rare cases, by relying upon the
recommendations of the 48th Law Commission Report. It is also a
fact that in all cases where imposition of capital punishment is a
choice of sentence, aggravating circumstances would always be on
record, and would be part of the prosecution’s evidence, leading to
conviction, whereas the accused can scarcely be expected to place
mitigating circumstances on the record, for the reason that the stage
for doing so is after conviction. This places the convict at a
hopeless disadvantage, tilting the scales heavily against him. This
court is of the opinion that it is necessary to have clarity in the
matter to ensure a uniform approach on the question of granting
real and meaningful opportunity, as opposed to a formal hearing, to
the accused/convict, on the issue of sentence.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
35 CRRFC-4-2023
61. At this stage, it will not be out of place to refer to the judgment of
High Court of Bombay in State of Maharashtra (through DCB, CID) Vs.
Vijay Mohan Jadhav and others, (2021) SCC OnLine Bom 4563
(decided on November 25th 2021) wherein it is held that the trial or
judgment should not be influenced by public outcry. Referring to the
judgment of Apex court in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs.
State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498, in paragraph 142 of the
judgment it is observed as under:-
“142. In Report No. 262 of Chapter VII of the Report, Law
Commission concluded as follows:-
“7.1.1. The death penalty does not serve the penological goal
of deterrence any more than life imprisonment. Further life
imprisonment in Indian law means imprisonment for whole
life subject to just remission which in many states in cases of
serious crimes are granted only after many years of
imprisonment which range from 30 to 60 years.
7.1.2 Retribution has an important role in punishment.
However, it cannot be reduced to vengeance. The notion of
‘eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth’ has no place in our
constitutionally mediated criminal justice system. Capital
punishment fails to achieve any constitutionally valid
penological goals.
7.1.3 In focusing on death penalty as the ultimate measure of
justice to victims, the restorative and rehabilitative aspects of
justice are lost sight of. Reliance on the death penalty diverts
attention from other problems ailing the criminal justice
system such as poor investigation, crime prevention and rights
of victims of crime. It is essential that the State establishSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3846236 CRRFC-4-2023
effective victim compensation schemes to rehabilitate victims
of crime. At the same time, it is also essential that courts use
the power granted to them under the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 to grant appropriate compensation to victims in
suitable cases.”
62. In paragraph 147, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has noted as
under:-
“147. At this juncture, we are reminded of the sestet of the
poet and philosopher-Khalil Gibran.
‘And how shall you punish those whose remorse is already
greater than their misdeed?
Is not remorse the justice which is administered by that very
law which you would fain serve?
Yet you cannot lay remorse upon the innocent nor lift it from
the heart of the guilty.”
63. When all these facts and the philosophy are taken into
consideration, then it is true that while drawing a comparative statement
of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are persuaded to
observe that the victim was a youth of about 21 years. He was brutally
killed. Prosecution has tried to suggest that appellant/accused tried to
suppress the identity of the deceased by burning him inasmuch as he
wanted to camouflage his own identity, with that of the deceased, to
escape from the clutches of law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
37 CRRFC-4-2023
64. It is also true that the manner, in which, offence was given effect
to, was barbaric and reprehensible to the conscious of the society, but at
the same time it is equally true that appellant/accused-Rajat Saini too is a
youth of about 27 years. His appeals against two judgments of conviction
and sentence, one for life and another for seven years, are pending before
the respective Benches of this High Court. The manner, in which, trial
was conducted after reserving the case for judgment on 28.04.2023 and
fixing it for judgment on 04.05.2023, on which date eventually judgment
was passed, it has come on record and could not be disputed by the
prosecution that Shri Ajay Kumar Khare, Deputy Superintendent, Central
Jail, Bhopal was examined. Thereafter, no opportunity was granted to the
appellant/accused by putting any question under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Firstly, the learned trial judge had examined the accused on 27.03.2023
and thereafter, his supplementary examination took place on 28.04.2023.
65. Thus, it is evident that firstly no additional charge was framed in
terms of the requirement of sub-section (7) of Section 211 Cr.P.C.;
secondly appellant was not confronted with the material of previous
conviction and that was not proved in terms of the provisions contained
in Section 298 Cr.P.C.; and thirdly aspect of previous conviction was
brought on record on 08.05.2023 and, therefore, it was obligatory on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
38 CRRFC-4-2023
trial court to have brought that material to the knowledge of the
appellant/accused to explain the circumstances under which said
conviction was recorded. Therefore, when these aspects are taken into
consideration, then in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court dated
19.09.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (CRL.) No.1 of 2022 , we are of
the opinion that convict being at a disadvantage, tilting the scales heavily
against him, court has to apply its conscience and when judgment of
Bombay High Court is taken into consideration then it is true that
remorse is already greater than misdeed and thus instead of taking away
life of a youth and not allowing him to apply to the reformative process
of prison and face the vagaries of life, we are of the opinion that this is
not a fit case to maintain the death penalty.
66. As far as conviction under Sections 489A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-
D IPC is concerned, it is seen that Section 489-A deals with
counterfeiting currency- notes or bank-notes, whereas Section 498-B
deals with using a genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-
notes, Section 489-C deals with possession of forged or counterfeit
currency-notes or bank-notes, and Section 498-D deals with making or
possessing instruments or material for forging or counterfeiting currency-
notes or bank-notes. As far as these aspects are concerned, we have noted
that appellant/accused was taken into custody on 15.07.2022 at 21:15
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
39 CRRFC-4-2023
hours from Amaltas Colony vide Ex.P/17. Property seizure memo of
counterfeited currency was drawn on 19.07.2022 vide Ex.P/6. When
appellant was already in custody on 15.07.2022, then place of seizure
memo is shown as Police Station Khajuri Sadak premises on 19.07.2022,
after four days of his formal arrest, leaves no iota of doubt that
counterfeited currency has been planted by the prosecution to involve the
appellant for other offences. As far as seizure of LED Monitor & Printer
vide Ex.P/5 is concerned, it is not proved that the currency, which was
seized vide Ex.P/6, was printed by using said equipment and, therefore,
we are of the opinion that prosecution in its zeal to implicate the
appellant has shown an act of negative overreach and has tried to
implicate him for charges under Sections 489A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D
of IPC without proving those aspects and prosecution could not establish
any connection between Seizure Memo (Ex.P/5) and Seizure Memo
(Ex.P/6). Therefore, appellant is acquitted from the charges under
Sections 489A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D IPC.
67. The conviction of appellant/accused by the trial Court under
section 302 & 201 of IPC is maintained.
68. Accordingly, the reference of confirmation of the death sentence is
answered in the negative. The death sentence awarded to the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38462
40 CRRFC-4-2023
(Rajat Saini @ Siddharth) vide judgment dated 04.05.2023 and sentence
dated 08.05.2023 is modified to life imprisonment for a minimum
duration of 20 years without remission.
69. Accordingly, the judgment of death penalty awarded to the
respondent in Sessions Case No.707 of 2022, vide judgment and order
dated 04.05.2023 under Section 302 IPC is not affirmed and is converted
to life imprisonment with sentence modified as above. The convict shall
suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Life for offence under Section 302 of
IPC, which shall mean rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years
without any remission.
70. Let record of the trial Court be sent back to the concerned Court.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-08-2025
18:59:35