Departmental Action May Follow: MP HC Slams Faulty Investigation in Panna Murder Case

In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the conviction of Kamlesh Bai Kushwaha and Raju Kushwaha, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under Sections 302/34 IPC by a trial court in Panna district.

Allowing Criminal Appeal No. 12354 of 2023, a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani held that “none of chain of circumstances is complete” and that the impugned judgment “cannot be sustained in the eyes of law”.

The appellants were represented by Advocate Vineet Mishra, while the State was represented by Government Advocate Ajay Tamrkar and the objector by Advocate Nandani Chheepa.

The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the theory of last seen, alleged illicit relationship, recovery of skeletal remains pursuant to memorandums, and call detail records. The bench found each link in the chain to be either unproven or legally infirm.

The court noted that the “last seen” witness Ramzan Khan (P.W.15) had turned hostile and denied having seen the deceased Panthprakash Kushwaha with the accused on the relevant date. As such, the foundational circumstance collapsed.

Equally damaging to the prosecution was the timeline surrounding the alleged memorandums recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The bench scrutinised the scene of crime report prepared by Scientific Officer Dr. Mahendra Singh, which showed that Inspector D.K. Singh was present at the crime scene at 8:30 a.m. on April 5, 2017. However, prosecution documents claimed that memorandums of the accused were recorded at the police station at 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. the same morning.

Terming the memorandums “fictitious documents” prepared subsequently to implicate the accused, the court held that they became inadmissible and of no evidentiary value. It further observed that star witness Chhotelal Kushwaha admitted his signatures were taken on blank papers, casting grave doubt on the integrity of the investigation.

The bench also found that the prosecution’s theory of motive, an alleged illicit relationship and a supposed job application pending in the Women and Child Development Department was unsupported by evidence. No official from the department was examined to substantiate the claim.

Similarly, the allegation that pesticide was administered to the deceased remained speculative. The court noted the absence of evidence regarding the physical attributes of the substance allegedly recovered, observing that simple tests could have clarified whether it was odorless or colorless.

Call detail records also failed to assist the prosecution, as the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was not properly obtained from the service provider.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra, the bench reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis except guilt. It emphasised the distinction between “may be proved” and “must be proved,” underscoring that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof.

In a sharp observation, the court remarked that the prosecution had displayed “intellectual dishonesty” in not exhibiting the scene of crime report and warned that police officers creating forged or fictitious documents could face departmental inquiry. A copy of the judgment was directed to be supplied to the Government Advocate to enable appropriate action by the Director General of Police.

Concluding that the investigation was not merely faulty but “malicious” in parts, the court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellants be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Emphasising accountability in criminal investigations, the court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated among police personnel, observing 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.” The bench added that such action “will be a warning to a police person to be careful while carrying out an investigation,” underlining that fabrication of evidence strikes at the very root of criminal justice

Case Title: Kamlesh Bai Kushwaha and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Judgment: February 9, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani