[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-503743-105":59,"doc-detail-503743-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","neelu-nilesh-koshti-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-criminal-appeal-no-5357-of-2025","Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti v. The State of Madhya Pradesh - Criminal Appeal No. 5357 of 2025","","Criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of India challenges concurrent convictions by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Electricity Act 03). The appellant Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, receiving life imprisonment and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with fines. The case relies on circumstantial evidence, including alleged ransom demands, mobile/SIM usage, a memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and recovery of the deceased’s body from a well.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/neelu-nilesh-koshti-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-criminal-appeal-no-5357-of-2025/503743/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/neelu-nilesh-koshti-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-criminal-appeal-no-5357-of-2025/503743.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Lucas Martin","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-09","2026-10-03",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What convictions are challenged in this appeal?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The appellant is challenging convictions under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, with life imprisonment and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively, along with fines.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What is the prosecution’s core case in the factual matrix?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The prosecution alleges a conspiracy to abduct Archana @ Pinki to obtain money from her husband, followed by her murder and disposal of the body in a well.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What do the appellants’ submissions focus on?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The appellant argues delay in lodging the missing report, lack of evidence substantiating the ransom call, insufficient identification of the recovered body, and absence of call details of the deceased’s mobile phone.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},503743,1791260901,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},8796095360427,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","2026 INSC 173  \nVERDICTUM.IN  \nREPORTABLE  \nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  \nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5357 OF 2025  \nNEELU @ NILESH KOSHTI …. APPELLANT(S)  \nVERSUS  \nTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …. RESPONDENT(S)  \nJ U D G M E N T  \nPRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J .  \n1) This Appeal calls in question the impugned judgment dated 01.12.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.389/2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, whereby, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Electricity Act 03), wherein the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/ -for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/ - for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC along with default stipulations.  \nFACTUAL MATRIX  \n2) On 28.07.2009, Bhagwati Bai (P.W.4) lodged a missing report at Pardeshipura Police Station, Indore, stating that her daughter Archana @ Pinki was missing from 25.07.2009. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the mobile phone of Archana @ Pinki was being used by a  \nVERDICTUM.IN  \nperson who allegedly had custody of her, and was seeking a ransom of Rs. 5 lakh from her husband Rajesh (P.W.12) . The SIM card belonging to Archana @ Pinki was actively used in her phone till 01.08.2009.  \n3) It was found that, there was another SIM card which was being used in her phone, particularly belonging to one Shekhar Chouhan (P.W.6) . Upon further investigation, it was unearthed that, Shekhar Chouhan purchased the mobile phone belonging to Archana @ Pinki from the appellant.  \n4) The prosecution alleges that, the appellant along with his friend Jai hatched a conspiracy to grab money from Archana @ Pinki’s husband by abducting her. Even though, her husband-Rajesh agreed to pay the ransom, unfortunately, she was murdered and her body was stuffed in a sack, and was thrown into a well.  \n5) The prosecution’s case further elicits that, on 10.08.2009 during the investigation, Inspector S.M. Jaidi (P.W.23) recorded a memorandum statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short,‘the Evidence Act’) , leading to the recovery of the body of the deceased-Archana @ Pinki. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC against the appellant. The Trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The appellant’s appeal challenging his conviction  \nVERDICTUM.IN  \nwas also futile, as the High Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and held as follows:  \n“20. Looking to the testimony of all these witnesses  \ncoupled with the medical evidence and other piece of  \ncircumstantial evidence available on record, we are of the  \nconsidered opinion that trial court did not commit any  \nerror in holding that appellant has murdered the  \ndeceased Pinki for non-fulfillment of his demand of  \nransom by strangulating her and kept her body in an  \nempty sack and destroyed the evidence of murder by  \nthrowing her dead body into the well.”  \n6) Hence, the appellant is before us, challenging the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court.  \nSUBMISSIONS  \n7) At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that there has been an inordinate delay in filing the missing report. The deceased was allegedly missing from 25.07.2009, but the report was filed only on  \n28.07.2009, without assigning any reason for such delay. He further contended, that though the husband of the deceased, alleged that he received a ransom call for Rs.5 lakh, no evidence is placed to substantiate the same.  \n8) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted tha","cbCaihVoYQG3n5dT","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihVoYQG3n5dT","pdf",324453,18,"English","# Parties and Appeal Summary\n# Factual Matrix\n# Submissions\n# Analysis","[{\"question\":\"What convictions are challenged in this appeal?\",\"answer\":\"The appellant is challenging convictions under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, with life imprisonment and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively, along with fines.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the prosecution’s core case in the factual matrix?\",\"answer\":\"The prosecution alleges a conspiracy to abduct Archana @ Pinki to obtain money from her husband, followed by her murder and disposal of the body in a well.\"},{\"question\":\"What do the appellants’ submissions focus on?\",\"answer\":\"The appellant argues delay in lodging the missing report, lack of evidence substantiating the ransom call, insufficient identification of the recovered body, and absence of call details of the deceased’s mobile phone.\"}]","Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti v. The State of Madhya Pradesh - Criminal Appeal No. 5357 of 2025 | PDF",1791060017,45]