Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mardam Singh Yaduvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
1 CRA-1376-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1376 of 2017
MARDAM SINGH YADUVANSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjeev Tiwari - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Dayaram Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10086 of 2025
ANIL SINGH MANDLOI AND OTHERS
Versus
MARDAM SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate with Shri Yash Raj Patel - Advocate for
the appellants.
Shri Dayaram Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 08.04.2026
Delivered on : 23.04.2026
JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal No.1376 of 2017 has been filed by the appellants,
namely, Mardam Singh Yaduvanshi, Vikram Singh, Kodar Singh, Santosh @
Titoo, Sanjay @ Sanju, Shakti Singh, Dhoom Singh @ Lada Kaka, Udham
Singh @ Jadam and Madhav Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “accused
persons”) under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
2 CRA-1376-2017
dated 25.03.2017 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Hoshangabad, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.400024 of
2010 whereby accused persons have been convicted under Sections 148,
324/149 and 323/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year with
fine of Rs.500/-; R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs.1000/-; and R.I. for 06
months with fine of Rs.300/- each accused respectively with default
stipulations.
2. Criminal Appeal No.10086/2025 has been filed under Section 378(3) of
Cr.P.C. by the appellants, namely, Anil Singh Mandloi, Ram Prasad, Vijay
Singh, Deep Singh, Nirbhay Singh and Anurag Mandloi (hereinafter referred
to as the “victims/complainants”) against the acquittal of accused persons by
the learned Trial Court from the charge under Section 307 of IPC and
Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Criminal Appeal No.1376 of 2017 has been ordered to be abated vide
order dated 10.10.2025 so far as it relates to accused/appellant No.1 Mardam
Singh Yaduvanshi as he has expired on 04.05.2021. Consequently, Criminal
Appeal No.10086 of 2025 also stands abated so far as it relates to
accused/respondent No.1 Mardam Singh.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.10.2009, at approximately
11:00 a.m., Anurag Mandloi, cousin of complainant Anil Mandloi, was
stopped by Santosh alias Titu, son of accused Shakti Singh, with a tractor on
the road and told to go back, or he would not return alive. Anurag Mandloi
informed complainant Anil Mandloi via mobile phone about Titu’s stoppage.
Complainant Anil Mandloi, Ramprasad Mandloi, Vijay Singh, Nirbhay
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
3 CRA-1376-2017
Singh, and Deep Singh went to the scene. The accused, Mardam Singh,
Vikram Singh, Udham Singh, Sanjay Singh and Shakti Singh carrying lathi
and Kodar Singh carrying axe, Madhav Singh carrying country-made pistol
and Dhoom Singh carrying axe were standing there and suddenly attacked
them with intent to kill. Mardam Singh struck complainant Anil Mandloi on
the head, and Udham Singh struck him on the hand with a stick. After this,
Madhav Singh fired at Nirbhay Singh with a pistol, which hit his left thigh.
Accused Shakti Singh, Dhum Singh and Mardan Singh caused injuries to
Ramprasad, Vijay Singh and Deep Singh by beating them with sticks and
swords. Ramprasad got injured on his head and waist, Vijay Singh on his
head and shoulder, Deep Singh on his head, Anurag on his hand and waist.
The fight took place due to old enmity. Hargovind Thakur, Nanhu Singh and
Ramesh Kumar came on the spot at the time of the incident and
intervened. On 15.10.2009, based on the report of the complainant Anil
Singh, Inspector S.L. Sonia of Seoni Malwa Police Station registered a case
against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 of IPC
and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and vide FIR (Ex.P/9). The injured
were medically examined. During the investigation, a spot map (Ex.P/14))
was prepared. Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded. The
accused were arrested.
5. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in
the competent court, which, on its turn, committed the case to the court of
sessions from where it was made over to Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Hoshangabad for trial.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
4 CRA-1376-2017
6. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of averments made in the charge
sheet framed charges against accused Madhav Singh for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323/149, 325/149 of IPC and
Section 25/27 of Arms Act and framed charges against rest of the accused
persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149,
323/149, 325/149 of IPC. The accused persons pleaded innocence and stated
that they had been falsely implicated due to a grudge. The accused did not
adduce any evidence in their defense.
7. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many
as 18 witnesses, which are Dr. Kanti (PW-1), Anil Kumar Mandloi (PW-2),
Vijay (PW-3), Nirbhay Singh (PW-4), Anurag Mandloi (PW-5), Ramprasad
(PW-6), Ramesh (PW-7), Deep Singh (PW-8), Dr. Sharad Khandelwal (PW-
9), Vijay Singh (PW-10), Santosh (PW-11), Machal Singh (PW-12), Vijay
Rathore (PW-13), Nanhu Singh (PW-14), Suresh Mehra (PW-15), Hargovind
Singh (PW-16), Arun Chaudhari (PW-17) and S.L. Sonya (PW-18) and
placed Ex.P/1 to P/57 and Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/10 the documents on record.
8. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence
acquitted accused Madhav Singh from the charges under Sections 307,
325/149 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act and acquitted the remaining
accused persons from the charge under Section 325/149 of IPC. The learned
Trial Court has convicted all the accused persons under Sections 147, 148,
324/149 and 323/149 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of
this judgment. In this manner, Criminal Appeal No.1376 of 2017 has been
filed by accused persons being aggrieved by their convictions and sentence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
5 CRA-1376-2017
under the aforesaid sections while Criminal Appeal No.10086/2025 has been
filed by the victims/complainants against the acquittal of accused persons by
the learned Trial Court from the charge under Section 307 of IPC.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the accused
persons that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.
Keeping in view the contradictions, omissions and variations revealed from
the cross-examinations ofe witnesses, no case is made out for their
conviction. It is, therefore, prayed that setting aside the impugned judgment,
the appeal filed by the accused persons be allowed.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the
impugned judgment.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the victims/complainants has
categorically submitted that the injured persons, namely Anil, Nirbhay
Singh, Ram Prasad, Vijay Singh, Deep Singh, and Anurag, sustained various
grievous injuries on vital parts of their bodies. It is further submitted that the
nature and extent of injuries are crucial in determining whether the offence
falls within the ambit of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard,
the medical evidence, particularly the testimony of Dr. Kanti Batham (PW-
1), clearly establishes that the injured persons sustained grievous injuries on
vital parts, including the head, and were in a critical condition when brought
for medical examination. They remained hospitalized for a considerable
period. Furthermore, the gunshot injury sustained by Nirbhay Singh on his
thigh, along with the size and severity of the other injuries, clearly indicate
the intention and knowledge, requisite for an offence under Section 307 IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
6 CRA-1376-2017
However, despite the cogent and reliable evidence available on record, the
learned Trial Court has erroneously overlooked the same and convicted the
accused only under Sections 323 and 324 read with Sections 148 and 149 of
the IPC. The victims/complainants have filed the appeal against acquittal
under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. Both the
offences are established by cogent and reliable evidence. It is therefore
prayed that the acquittal of accused persons under Section 307 of IPC and
Section 25/27 of Arms Act be set aside and they be punished adequately.
Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in
the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Shambhu Kewat and another in Criminal
Appeal No.2018 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.9278 of 2012) ; the
judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Gavaz Vs. State of Kerala in
CRL.A. No.1383 of 2007 passed on 11.07.2025 ; and the judgment of the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gabbar @ Gulam Gosh and others
Vs. The State of M.P. in Cr.A. No.1113 of 2005 passed on 18.01.2024.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. Dr. Kanti Batham (PW-1) on 15.10.2019 has conducted medical
examination of all the victim persons, namely, Nirbhay Singh (PW-4), Anil
Kumar Mandloi (PW-2), Vijay Singh (PW-10), Deep Singh (PW-8),
Ramprasad (PW-6), Ramesh (PW-7) and Anurag Mandloi (PW-5). She has
stated the injuries on the persons of the victims as under:
Nirbhay Singh
“Injury No. 1 : Curved wound on his right thigh, deep into the muscles.
The wound appeared to be internal and was bleeding profusely. This woundSignature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:320907 CRA-1376-2017
was on the right side of the right thigh. The wound measured 1 x 1.5 cm and
was deep into the muscles. The wound appeared to have been penetrated
through the wound. There were visible signs of an object entering the wound,
but no signs of its exit. He was advised X-ray of the wound. This injury is
likely to be caused by a gunshot.
Injury No.2 – An incised wound measuring 5 cm x 2.5 cm deep to the
muscle, located on the left parietal part of the head. The injury was likely
caused by a hard and blunt weapon and bleeding was occurring due to this
injury.
Injury No.3- A lacerated wound on the left parietal part of the head
measuring 6 x 1.5 cm x skin depth, possibly caused by a hard and blunt
object.
Injury No.4 – A lacerated wound measuring 4 cm x 2.5 cm, located on
the left parietal part of the head, was bleeding in a manner that could have
been caused by a hard and blunt object.
The victim’s general condition was poor. His pulse was 76/minute,
blood pressure was 100-70, and his hydration was normal. He was in a state
of aches and pains due to his injuries. After providing initial treatment, he
was referred to the District Hospital, Hoshangabad, for further examination
and treatment.
The injured was advised an X-ray of the above injuries and was also
advised for CT scan. After that, it was possible to give an opinion regarding
the nature of the injuries. All the injuries appeared to be of a six-hour
duration from the time of examination.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
8 CRA-1376-2017
Anil Kumar Mandloi
Injury No.1 – A lacerated wound measuring 2 x 1.5 cm, penetrating the
skin, was located on the left parietal part of the head, and was bleeding. He
was recommended for an X-ray and CT scan for this injury. This injury was
likely to be caused by hard and blunt object. The injured reported vomiting
two or three times. His general condition was fine. After providing initial
treatment, he was referred to Hoshangabad District Hospital, Hoshangabad,
for a CT scan and X-ray.
Anurag Mandloi
Injury No.1- A contusion measuring 4 cm x 2.5 cm located on the
front of the right forearm. It was dark blue in color. It was likely to be caused
by a hard and blunt object He reported pain in the left clerical area, but no
visible injury was seen there.
As per doctor’s opinion, the injury was of a simple nature and could
have been caused within 72 hours.
Ramprasad
Injury No.1- A lacerated wound size 6 cm x 2.5 cm extending deep
into the muscle was located on the right parietal region of the head and
bleeding. This injury was likely to be caused by a hard and blunt object.
Injury No.2- Contusion measuring 6 cm x 3 cm, reddened and tender
to palpation, located on the right lumbar region above the waist, and caused
by a hard and blunt object.
The general condition of the injured was fine. He was advised for an
X-ray and CT scan regarding injury no. 1. An X-ray of the waist was also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
9 CRA-1376-2017
recommended for Injury No.2. After first aid, the injured was referred to the
District Hospital, Hoshangabad. The injury occurred within 6 hours of the
time of examination.
Ramesh
Injury No.1- There was swelling and contusion on the outside of the
left shoulder. The size was 6 cm in length and it was placed at an angle and
was carrying a mace which could have been caused by a hard and blunt
object.
The injury was simple in nature and could have occurred within 6
hours from the time of examination.
Deep Singh
Injury No.1- One incised wound measuring 4 cm x 2.5 cm. The
wound, located deep in the muscle and located on the right parietal part of
the head and was bleeding.
He complained of vomiting and dizziness, but otherwise, his general
condition was good.
After providing first aid, the injured was referred to the District
Hospital, Hoshangabad. He was advised for CT scan in respect of injury no.
1. The injury caused to the injured could have occurred within 6 hours from
the time of examination.
Vijay Singh
Injury No.1- A lacerated wound measuring 6 cmx2.5 cm deep into the
muscles, located on the left parietal part of the head.. The wound was
bleeding. This injury was likely caused by a hard and blunt object. He was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
10 CRA-1376-2017
advised for X-ray and CT scan for the said injury.
Injury No.2- There was redness and swelling on the left eye, and he
was advised to obtain an ophthalmologist’s opinion in this regard. This injury
was likely to be caused by a hard and blunt object.
After first aid, the injured was referred to the District Hospital
Hoshangabad. His general condition was good. All of the above injuries
could have occurred within six hours of the time of examination.
14. The injured witnesses, namely Nirbhay Singh (PW-4), Anil Kumar
Mandloi (PW-2), Vijay Singh (PW-10), Deep Singh (PW-8), Ramprasad
(PW-6), Ramesh (PW-7), and Anurag Mandloi (PW-5), have categorically
stated in their respective testimonies that the accused persons arrived at the
spot collectively, armed with lathis, while accused Madhav Singh was armed
with a katta (country-made firearm). They have further deposed that Madhav
Singh caused a firearm injury to Nirbhay Singh. Accused Mardam Singh and
Udham Singh @ Jadam inflicted injuries upon Anil Kumar Mandloi (PW-2)
by means of lathis. It is also stated that Udham Singh @ Jadam caused
additional injuries with a lathi. Furthermore, accused Udham Singh, Mardam
Singh, Santosh, and Dhoom Singh @ Lada Kaka caused injuries to
Ramprasad, Nirbhay Singh, and Deep Singh using lathis. As a result of the
assault, Nirbhay Singh, Deep Singh, and Ramprasad sustained multiple
injuries. It has also come on record that Ramesh, Hargovind, and Nanhu
Singh intervened during the incident. Thereafter, the First Information Report
(FIR) was lodged, which has been exhibited as Ex. P/9.
15. Vijay (PW-3) is a witness to the seizure from the victims, Nirbhay
Singh and Ram Prasad, and to seizure memos Ex.P/10 to Ex.P/13; however,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
11 CRA-1376-2017
he has turned hostile and has not supported these documents. Santosh (PW-
11) and Mahal Singh (PW-12), who are witnesses to Ex.P/21 to Ex.P/32,
have also turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. Vijay
Rathore (PW-13), a witness to Ex.P/33 to Ex.P/41, likewise turned hostile.
Suresh Mehra (PW-15) is a witness to seizure memo Ex.P/44 and to the
mechanical examination of the seized tractor bearing registration No. MP-
05-F-8928, he has supported these documents. Independent witnesses
Nanhu Singh (PW-14) and Hargovind Singh (PW-16) have not supported the
prosecution story and have also been declared hostile. However, merely due
to the absence of independent corroboration, the testimony of the victim
witnesses cannot be discarded; rather, it must be scrutinized with due care
and caution.
16. Upon analyzing the statements of the victim persons, it is evident that
their testimonies have remained largely unrebutted despite detailed cross-
examination by the defence, except for certain contradictions and variations
of a trivial nature. It is pertinent to note that nine accused persons arrived at
the spot and inflicted injuries upon the victims, numbering seven, by means
of various arms, including gun fire. In such circumstances, the precise
sequence of events and minor details of the occurrence of assault cannot
reasonably be expected to be narrated with exactitude by the witnesses,
particularly when their statements were recorded after a
considerable hiatus of time before this Court. It is a settled principle of law
that minor discrepancies, contradictions, and omissions in the statements of
witnesses are bound to occur and should not be given undue weight unless
they go to the root of the prosecution case. In the present case, the learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
12 CRA-1376-2017
counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has failed to point out any
material grounds on which the testimonies of the victim witnesses may be
discarded or treated as unreliable. The statements of the victims stand further
corroborated by the medical evidence on record, as well as by the First
Information Report (Ex. P/9), which was promptly lodged on the same day of
the incident at Police Station Seoni Malwa. The police has also initiated the
investigation without delay. In this regard, S.L. Sonya (PW-18), the
Investigating Officer, has deposed before the Court in detail.
17. The various seizures effected at the instance of the accused persons
cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the independent witnesses
did not support the prosecution case. The testimony of the Investigating
Officer, S.L. Sonya (PW-18), cannot be discarded solely on the basis that he
is a police witness. His statement remained consistent and intact during
cross-examination, and nothing material has been elicited to discredit his
testimony, except with regard to the alleged seizure of a katta from the
possession of accused Madhav Singh, which shall be dealt with separately at
a later stage. Consequently, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Trial
Court cannot be said to be erroneous from the perspective advanced on
behalf of the accused persons. There exists no ground to interfere with the
findings of conviction under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149 of
IPC. It is pertinent to note that, insofar as the conviction under Section 324
read with Section 149 of IPC is concerned, the same is consequential lesser
offence to the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC,
which shall also be discussed subsequently.
18. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the accused persons against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
13 CRA-1376-2017
conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
19. As far as appeal on behalf of complainants is concerned, at the outset,
it is to be noted that there is a material contradiction revealed regarding the
description of the seized firearm, specifically as to whether it was having .32
bore or .38 bore. The Investigating Officer, after seizing the pistol, prepared
the seizure memo (Ex. P/52), which indicates that the weapon was a .32 bore
country-made pistol. This description is also reflected in the FSL report (Ex.
P/55). However, the armourer’s report (Ex. P/45) records that the seized
katta was of .38 bore. In this regard, the testimony of armourer Arun
Chaudhari (PW-17) is inconsistent with that of the Investigating Officer,
thereby creating a significant discrepancy in the prosecution’s case. Further,
the FSL report (Ex. P/55) reveals that although the empty cartridges and live
cartridges seized from the spot, along with the pistol, remained subjected to
examination and comparison with test-fired cartridges, no definite opinion
could be formed as to whether the empty cartridges had been fired from the
seized firearm. In the absence of such a conclusive opinion, the FSL report
does not substantively support the prosecution. That apart, the seizure memo
(Ex. P/52) does not bear any seal impression. There is also no evidence on
record establishing the fact that the seized pistol was sealed in the presence
of witnesses and thereafter kept in safe and secure custody in a sealed
condition. This omission raises serious doubts regarding the integrity of the
chain of custody. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to properly prove the
sanction for prosecution under Section 39 of the Arms Act. Although the
sanction order (Ex. P/57) was produced through the Investigating Officer, no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
14 CRA-1376-2017
official from the office of the District Magistrate, nor the District Magistrate
himself, was examined to substantiate and formally prove the said sanction.
In view of the aforesaid deficiencies, the prosecution has failed to establish
its case under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Consequently, the
findings of the learned Trial Court in this regard cannot be said to be
erroneous or unfounded.
20. In so far as the offence under Section 307, 307/149 of IPC is
concerned, the injuries, as described by Dr. Kanti Batham (PW-1), clearly
reveal that the victim, Nirbhay Singh (PW-4), sustained a penetrating wound
on his left thigh. In respect of other injuries to Nirbhay Singh and injuries to
other injured persons, there is no document on record, nor any evidence, to
establish that any fracture or grievous injury was sustained by them.
Although Dr. Kanti Batham (PW-1) has opined that the injury of Ramprasad
was grievous in nature, no X-ray report or CT scan report has been produced
or proved by the prosecution in support of such opinion. Therefore, in the
absence of corroborative medical evidence, the said injuries cannot be
conclusively held to be grievous in nature.
21. However, in respect of injury found to Nirbhay Singh on his left thigh,
Dr. Sharad Khandelwal (PW-9) deposed that on 15.10.2009, he examined
Nirbhay Singh (PW-4), who informed him that he had sustained a gunshot
injury. Upon examination, he found a gunshot wound on the left thigh, with
the bullet stuck therein. The bullet was subsequently removed through a
surgical procedure. He prepared and submitted medical reports marked as
Ex. P/15 to Ex. P/19, and also issued a letter to the Station House Officer,
marked as Ex. P/20. Although, in his cross-examination, he stated that such
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
15 CRA-1376-2017
an injury could be self-inflicted, nothing material has emerged from his
testimony to substantiate or support that possibility.
22. Though there is a discrepancy in the statements of Dr. Kanti Batham
(PW-1) and Dr. Sharad Khandelwal (PW-9) regarding whether the injury was
on the right or left thigh, the same has been duly considered by the learned
Trial Court. The medical report (Ex. P/1) pertaining to the injury of Nirbhay
Singh (PW-4) clearly indicates that the injury was on the left thigh. The
mention of “right thigh” in paragraph 2 of the statement of Dr. Kanti Batham
(PW-1) appears to be a clerical error. Therefore, such a minor inconsistency
does not affect the credibility/veracity of the testimonies of these witnesses..
23. The injured witnesses, namely Nirbhay Singh (PW-4), Anil Kumar
Mandloi (PW-2), Vijay Singh (PW-10), Deep Singh (PW-8), Ramprasad
(PW-6), Ramesh (PW-7), and Anurag Mandloi (PW-5), have categorically
deposed that the accused persons arrived at the spot armed with various arms,
and that accused Madhav Singh fired a shot from a katta, which struck
Nirbhay Singh, causing an injury to his left thigh, which is further
corroborated by the statements of Dr. Kanti Batham (PW-1) and Dr. Sharad
Khandelwal (PW-9). Although Dr. Kanti Batham (PW-1) did not provide a
definitive opinion as to whether the injury was caused by a gunshot, the
unrebutted testimony of Dr. Sharad Khandelwal (PW-9) clearly establishes
that the injury sustained by Nirbhay Singh on his left thigh was indeed a
gunshot wound. Furthermore, it has been duly proved that a bullet was
surgically removed from his left thigh.
24. The learned Trial Court has duly considered the evidence on record in
detail. It has minutely analyzed the evidence, including the various
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
16 CRA-1376-2017
contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses, and has
concluded that the testimony of the witnesses regarding the factum that
accused persons caused injuries with respective weapons stands proved.
However, so far as the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC is concerned,
the findings of the learned Trial Court that the injury sustained by Nirbhay
Singh was not found to be caused by gunshot fire, is erroneous. As
discussed earlier, the injury sustained by Nirbhay Singh was undisputedly
established to have been caused by gunshot fire, in light of the statements of
the eyewitnesses and the injured, as well as the testimony of the medical
experts, namely Dr. Kanti Batham (PW-1) and Dr. Sharad Khandelwal (PW-
9).
25. Though the recovery of weapon by which the gun shot was fired has
not been found to be proved with reliable evidence, however even non-
recovery of the weapon is not fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when
there is reliable ocular evidence and other corroborative circumstances on
record. In this regard, para 12 of the decision of Apex Court in the case
o f Rakesh V. State of U.P., (2021) 7 SCC 188 is relevant, which is
reproduced as under:
“12. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that as
per the ballistic report the bullet found does not match with the
firearm/gun recovered and therefore the use of gun as alleged is
doubtful and therefore benefit of doubt must be given to the
accused is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. At the
most, it can be said that the gun recovered by the police from the
accused may not have been used for killing and therefore the
recovery of the actual weapon used for killing can be ignored and
it is to be treated as if there is no recovery at all. For convicting an
accused recovery of the weapon used in commission of offence is
not a sine qua non. PW 1 and PW 2, as observed hereinabove, are
reliable and trustworthy eyewitnesses to the incident and they have
specifically stated that A-1 Rakesh fired from the gun and the
deceased sustained injury. The injury by the gun has beenSignature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3209017 CRA-1376-2017
established and proved from the medical evidence and the
deposition of Dr Santosh Kumar, PW 5. Injury 1 is by gunshot.
Therefore, it is not possible to reject the credible ocular evidence
of PW 1 and PW 2 — eyewitnesses who witnessed the shooting. It
has no bearing on credibility of deposition of PW 1 and PW 2 that
A-1 shot deceased with a gun, particularly as it is corroborated by
bullet in the body and also stands corroborated by the testimony of
PW 2 and PW 5. Therefore, merely because the ballistic report
shows that the bullet recovered does not match with the gun
recovered, it is not possible to reject the credible and reliable
deposition of PW 1 and PW 2.”
(emphasis supplied)
26. It is trite law that for ascertaining as to whether the offence of
Section 307 of IPC is made out or not, the intention is prime consideration
not the nature of injury sustained by the victim. The High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in the case of Gavaz (supra) in para 14 to 18 has considered
various citations of Hon’ble Apex Court and concluded in tune as under :
“14. As far as the ingredients to attract offence punishable under
Section 307 of IPC is concerned, the law is no more res integra. In
this connection it is relevant to refer Section 307 of IPC. The same
reads as under:
“307: Attempt to murder:– Whoever does any act with such
intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he
by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if urt
is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable
either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein
before mentioned.”
15. In the decision reported in [(2009) 4 SCC 26 : (2009) 2 SCC
(Cri) 40 : AIR 2009 SC 1642], State of M.P v. Kashiram, the
scope of intention for attracting conviction under Section 307 IPC
was elaborated and it was held in paragraphs 12 and 13 as under:
“12….’13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307
if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of
causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a
distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any.
The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was
done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstancesSignature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3209018 CRA-1376-2017
mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under
Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries
inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
14. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v.
Balram Bama Patil, [(1983) 2 SCC 28 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 320],
Girija Shankar v. State of U.P, [(2004) 3 SCC 793 : 2004 SCC
(Cri) 863] and R.Prakash v. State of Karnataka, [(2004) 9 SCC 27 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 1408].
xxx xxx xxx xxx
16. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death
will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts
of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the
accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application
of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is the intention or
knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury.’
See State of M.P v. Saleem , [(2005) 5 SCC 554 : 2005 SCC (Cri)
1329], SCC pp. 559-60, paras 13-14 and 16.
13. `6. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do
more harm to the justice system to undermine the public
confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure
under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court
to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the
offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed,
etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka
Perumal v. State of T.N, [(1991) 3 SCC 471 : 1991 SCC (Cri)
724]. (Saleem case [(2005) 5 SCC 554 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1329],
SCCp.558, para 6)”
16. In the decision reported in [(2004) 9 SCC 27 : 2004 SCC (Cri)
1408], R.Prakash v. State of Karnataka , in para.9 the Apex Court
held that:
“9. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there
is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury
actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming
to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may
also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some
cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds.
The Sections makes a distinction between the act of the accused
and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act,
irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge
and under circumstances mentioned in the Section.” (emphasis
supplied)Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3209019 CRA-1376-2017
5.6.3. If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that
such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the
provisions of Section 307 IPC would be applicable. There is no
requirement for the injury to be on a “vital part” of the body,
merely causing “hurt” is sufficient to attract S. 307 IPC [State of
M.P. v. Mohan, (2013) 14 SCC 116 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 119].
5.6.4. This Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana reported in
[(2015) 11 SCC 366 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 425], held that:(SCC
p.370, para.12)“12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC,
prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder;
and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the
prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder
of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended
to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under
Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of
causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of
injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding
as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be
adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is
to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the
weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the
incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury
was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows
given, etc.”(emphasis supplied)5.6.5. This Court in the recent decision of State of M.P. v. Kanha
reported in (2019) 3 SCC 605 held that:
“13. The above judgements of this Court lead us to the conclusion
that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non
for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention
of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as
well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the
nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted
can be considered to infer intent.” (emphasis supplied)5.7. In view of the above mentioned findings, it is evident that the
ingredients of Section 307 have been made out, as the intention of
the Accused /Respondent No. 1 can be ascertained clearly from his
conduct, and the circumstances surrounding the offence.”
17. In the decision reported in [(2021) 20 SCC 24], Surinder Singh
v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) , the Apex Court
considered a question as to whether the guilt of the appellant under
Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt? and
held in paragraphs 19 to 25 as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
20 CRA-1376-2017
“19. Before we advert to the factual matrix or gauge the
trustworthiness of the witnesses, it will be beneficial to brace
ourselves of the case law qua the essential conditions, requisite for
bringing home a conviction under Section 307 IPC. In State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Saleem reported in (2009) 4 SCC 26, this
Court, while re-appreciating the true import of Section 307 IPC
held as follows:
“12. To justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential
that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been
inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often
give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the
intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from
other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained
without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a
distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any.
Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person
assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the
culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that
the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be
sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the
person assaulted. What the court has to see is whether the act,
irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge
and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in
order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient
in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof.
13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there
is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction
between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has
to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the
intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the
section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC
cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the
victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.” (emphasis supplied)
20. These very ingredients have been accentuated in some of the
later decisions, including in State of M.P. vs. Kashiram reported in
[(2009) 4 SCC 26 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 40], Jage Ram v. State of
Haryana reported in [(2015) 11 SCC 366 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri)
425] and State of M.P. v. Kanha reported in [(2019) 3 SCC 605 :
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 247].
21. It is by now a lucid dictum that for the purpose of constituting
an offence under Section 307 IPC, there are two ingredients that a
Court must consider, first, whether there was any intention
or knowledge on the part of accused to cause death of the victim,
and, second, such intent or knowledge was followed by some overtSignature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3209021 CRA-1376-2017
actus rea in execution thereof, irrespective of the consequential
result as to whether or not any injury is inflicted upon the victim.
The courts may deduce such intent from the conduct of the
accused and surrounding circumstances of the offence, including
the nature of weapon used or the nature of injury, if any. The
manner in which occurrence took place may enlighten more than
the prudential escape of a victim. It is thus not necessary that a
victim shall have to suffer an injury dangerous to his life, for
attracting Section 307 IPC.
22. It would also be fruitful at this stage, to appraise whether the
requirement of “motive” is indispensable for proving the charge of
attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
23. It is significant to note that “motive” is distinct from “object
and means” which innervates or provokes an action. Unlike
“intention”, “motive” is not the yardstick of a crime. A lawful act
with an ill motive would not constitute an offence but it may not be
true when an unlawful act is committed with best of the motive.
Unearthing “motive” is akin to an exercise of manual brain-
mapping. At times, it becomes herculean task to ascertain the
traces of a “motive”.
24. This Court has time and again ruled: (Bipin Kumar Mondal v.
State of W.B. reported in [(2010) 12 SCC 91 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri)
150], SCC p.97, para.23)
“23. …that in case the prosecution is not able to discover an
impelling motive, that could not reflect upon the credibility of a
witness proved to be a reliable eyewitness. Evidence as to motive
would, no doubt, go a long way incases wholly dependent on
circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the
links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But
that would not be so in cases where there are eyewitnesses of
credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly
proved, such proof would strengthen the prosecution case and
fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean
that if motive is not established, the evidence of an eyewitness is
rendered untrustworthy.” [See:Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of
Maharashtra reported in [(1973) 3 SCC 219 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 214]
and Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal reported in
[(2010) 12 SCC 91 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 150]
25. We are thus of the considered opinion that whilst motive is
infallibly a crucial factor, and is a substantial aid for evincing the
commission of an offence but the absence thereof is, however, not
such a quintessential component which can be construed as fatal to
the case of the prosecution, especially when all other factors point
towards the guilt of the accused and testaments of eyewitnesses to
the occurrence of a malfeasance are on record.”
18. Thus the legal position is well settled that for the purpose of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
22 CRA-1376-2017
constituting an offence under Section 307 IPC, there are two
ingredients that a Court must consider: first, whether there was
any intention or knowledge on the part of accused to cause death
of the victim; and, second, such intent or knowledge was followed
by some overt actus reus in execution thereof, irrespective of the
consequential result as to whether or not any injury is inflicted
upon the victim. The courts may deduce such intent from the
conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstances of the
offence, including the nature of weapon used or the nature of
injury, if any. The manner in which occurrence took place may
enlighten more than the prudential escape of a victim. It is thus
not necessary that a victim shall have to suffer an injury dangerous
to his life, for attracting Section 307 IPC. It is sufficient to justify a
conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled
with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that
bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.
The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and
its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective
of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused
charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely
because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a
simple hurt. To put it otherwise, if a person commits an act with
intention or knowledge that under such circumstance if death has
been caused the offence would amount to murder or the act itself
is of such nature as would cause death in the usual course of its
nature, then the person said to have committed the offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC, for which, the victim shall
not suffer any injury/injuries fatal to him.”
27. In the case of Gabbar (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court in
para 16 to 18 has considered various citations in this regard as under :-
“16. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Harjeet Singh and others reported in (2019) 20 SCC 524 has
held as under:-
5.6.1. If a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that
he may cause death, it would attract Section 307.
5.6.2. This Court in R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 9
SCC 27 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1408, held that: (SCC p. 30, paras 8-9)“8. … The first blow was on a vital part, that is, on the temporal
region. Even though other blows were on non-vital parts, that does
not take away the rigour of Section 307 IPC….
9. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there
is present an intent coupled with some overt act in executionSignature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3209023 CRA-1376-2017
thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury
actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming
to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may
also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some
cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds.
The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and
its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective
of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the section.”
(emphasis supplied)
5.6.3. If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that
such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the
provisions of Section 307 IPC would be applicable. There is no
requirement for the injury to be on a “vital part” of the body,
merely causing “hurt” is sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC.
[State of M.P. v. Mohan, (2013) 14 SCC 116 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri)
119]
5.6.4. This Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC
366 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 425 held that:(SCC p. 370, para 12)
“12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC,
prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder;
and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the
prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder
of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended
to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under
Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of
causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of
injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding
as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be
adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is
to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the
weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the
incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury
was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows
given, etc.”
(emphasis supplied)
5.6.5. This Court in the recent decision of State of M.P. v. Kanha
(2019) 3 SCC 605 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 247 held that: (SCC p.
609, para 13)
“13. The above judgments [Ed.: The reference is to State of
Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28 : 1983 SCC
(Cri) 320; State of M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 : 2005 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
24 CRA-1376-2017
(Cri) 1329; Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 :
(2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 425] of this Court lead us to the conclusion
that proof of grievous or life- threatening hurt is not a sine qua non
for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention
of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as
well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the
nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted
can be considered to infer intent.”
17. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Kanha Alias Omprakash reported in (2019) 3 SCC 605 has held as
under:-
“13. The above judgments of this Court lead us to the conclusion
that proof of grievous or life- threatening hurt is not a sine qua non
for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention
of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as
well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the
nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted
can be considered to infer intent.”
18. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Saleem
Alias Chamaru and Another reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554 has
held as under:-
“12. To justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential
that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been
inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often
give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the
intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from
other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained
without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a
distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any.
Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person
assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the
culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that
the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be
sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the
person assaulted. What the court has to see is whether the act,
irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge
and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in
order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient
in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof.
13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there
is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction
between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has
to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3209025 CRA-1376-2017
intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the
section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC
cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the
victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
14. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v.
Balram Bama Patil [(1983) 2 SCC 28 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 320],
Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. [(2004) 3 SCC 793 : 2004 SCC
(Cri) 863] and R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka [(2004) 9 SCC 27
: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1408 : JT (2004) 2 SC 348] .
15. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 843 : (1965) 1
Cri LJ 766] it was observed in para 6 that mere fact that the injury
actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the
victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview
of Section 307.
16. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death
will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts
of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the
accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application
of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is the intention or
knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury.
The basic difference between Sections 333 and 325 IPC is that
Section 325 gets attracted where grievous hurt is caused whereas
Section 333 gets attracted if such hurt is caused to a public
servant.”
28. Keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid cases and the
evidence on record, the findings of the learned Trial Court are found to be
faulty insofar as it did not consider the case under Section 307 of the IPC.
The act of firing a gunshot from a pistol and thereby causing injury, by itself,
establishes an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, inasmuch as the
intention or knowledge that the act was sufficient to cause death of injured
Nirbhay Singh can be inferred from such conduct of the accused. Mere
discrepancies in the seizure of fire arm, the absence of a definite opinion by
the FSL, and anomalies in the evidence regarding the bore of the seized
pistol do not, by themselves, demolish the prosecution case in this regard..
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
26 CRA-1376-2017
The Allahabad High Court in the case of Kamal Singh Vs. State of U.P., in
Criminal Appeal No.1496 of 1995 in para 18 and 29 has observed as under :
“18. The mere use of lethal weapon is sufficient to invoke the
provisions of Section 307. It is not necessary to constitute the
offence that the attack should result in an injury. An attempt is
itself sufficient if there is requisite intention. An intention to
murder can be gathered from circumstances other than the
existence or nature of the injury.
29. A country made pistol is a lethal weapon. Firearm injury
caused by country-made pistol may be fatal in nature.”
29. Having regard the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, the act of
the present accused/appellant Madhav Singh clearly falls under the purview
of Section 307 of IPC and the act of other co-accused persons/appellants
squarely falls under Section 307 r/w S.149 of IPC as their common object to
cause injury by co-accused Madhav Singh by gun shot fire with intent to
cause death of Nirbhay Singh and in pursuance thereof their overt act of
causing injuries to various victims, has been established. Therefore, there is a
ground to convict accused Madhav Singh under Section 307 of IPC instead
of Section 324 of IPC and other accused persons under Section 307 r/w
S.149 of IPC instead of Section 324 r/w S.149 of IPC.
30. It is pertinent to mention that the appeal on behalf of the complainants
has been filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against
the acquittal of accused persons from Sections 307 and 307/149 of IPC and
Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act only, hence the consideration of Court is limited
to that extent only. That apart, in this case a number of persons are injured
while conviction and sentence on each count has not been awarded by the
Trial Court, however this Court is not going into that question as inasmuch
as this appeal is to be considered to the extent as discussed above and no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
27 CRA-1376-2017
appeal for enhancement of sentence lies at the instance of the complainant
under the said provision. The observations of this Court are confined strictly
within the scope of Section 372 Cr.P.C.
31. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the act of
causing gunshot injuries itself establishes the offence under Section 307 and
307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court has erred in
acquitting the accused persons of the aforesaid charge and in convicting
them for the lesser offence under Section 324 and 324 read with Section 149
of the IPC. Accordingly, the conviction for the lesser offence under Section
324 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC is set aside being erroneous, in place
of it accused Madhav Singh is hereby held guilty for the offence under
Section 307 of the IPC. The remaining accused persons, namely Vikram
Singh, Kodar Singh, Santosh @ Titoo, Sanjay @ Sanju, Shakti Singh,
Dhoom Singh @ Lada Kaka, and Udham Singh @ Jadam, are held guilty for
the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
32. Learned counsel for the complainants/victims and accused persons
present in the court today i.e. 23.04.2026 are heard on the point of sentence
and compensation under section 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
33. Learned counsel for the accused persons has submitted before the
Court that the accused persons are poor and that the incident pertains to the
year 2009. It is further submitted that they are first-time offenders.
Accordingly, it is prayed that this Court may adopt a sympathetic and lenient
view while awarding the sentence.
34. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainants/victims has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
28 CRA-1376-2017
submitted that, having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the offence,
the accused persons deserve to be awarded a substantial term of
imprisonment.
35. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, and
upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused,
Madhav Singh convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of
IPC and remaining accused persons, namely Vikram Singh, Kodar Singh,
Santosh @ Titoo, Sanjay @ Sanju, Shakti Singh, Dhoom Singh @ Lada
Kaka, and Udham Singh @ Jadam convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC, each are sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of
₹5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The fine amount, if
already deposited for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 324
read with Section 149 of IPC shall be adjusted towards the fine imposed
herein. The conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Trial Court
under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC shall remain
undisturbed.
36. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2017 filed by the accused
persons is dismissed, and Criminal Appeal No. 10086 of 2025 is partly
allowed to the extent indicated above.
37. The accused persons are on bail. They are directed to surrender before
the concerned Trial Court for serving the remaining part of jail sentence.
38. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the property
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32090
29 CRA-1376-2017
is affirmed.
39. Let record of the Trial Court along with copy of this order be sent
back to the court concerned.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 24-04-2026
13:43:53