Madhya Pradesh High Court
Heeralal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
1 CRA-572-2016
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 9th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 572 of 2016
RAM PRASAD @ NANHE BHAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Hussain Ali Saify, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4247 of 2021
HEERALAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prabhat Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
These criminal appeals are filed by the convicted accused persons
being aggrieved of judgment dated 12/01/2016 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, Distt. Damoh in S.T. No.374/2011
whereby learned trial Court has convicted all the eight accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
2 CRA-572-2016
persons/appellants under Section 302 read with 149 in relation to death
of Paramlal, Sections 148, 323 read with Section 149 of IPC in relation
to injured Balchand and Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC in
relation to Mayarani and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with
fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, R.I.
for one year along with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 148 of IPC, R.I.
for six months along with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 read with
Section 149 of IPC (two counts) with default stipulations of one year
R.I, six month R.I. and three months R.I. (two counts) each
respectively.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have
been falsely implicated. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence
is improper. There was a counter case filed by the appellants/accused
persons against complainant party vide S.T. No.153/2012 in which five
members of the complainant party namely Balchand, S/o Nanna Kachhi,
Kamalkant, S/o Nanna Kachhi, Purushottam, S/o Nanna Kachhi, Tulsi
S/o Heeralal and Vijay, S/o Darbari Kachi were implicated.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
members of the complainant party namely Balchand, S/o Nanna Kachhi,
Kamalkant, S/o Nanna Kachhi, Purushottam, S/o Nanna Kachhi, Tulsi
S/o Heeralal and Vijay, S/o Darbari Kachi have been convicted vide
judgment dated 12/01/2016 passed in S.T. No.153/2012 by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, Distt. Damoh, and convicted Balchand,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
3 CRA-572-2016
Kamalkant and Tulsi under Section 324, 323/34 of IPC in relation to
Heeralal who is accused in Cr.A. No.572/2016, under Section 323/34 in
relation to Tikaram and Ram Prasad who too are accused in Cr.A.
No.572/2016. Similarly, Vijay and Purushottam have been convicted
under Section 323 of IPC in relation to injured-Tikaram and Ram Prasad
on two counts and have been sentenced with two years R.I. along with
fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 324. Similarly, they have been
sentenced for six months RI along with fine of Rs.500/- under Section
323/34 on three counts each respectively with default stipulations.
Therefore, in a case of free fight, conviction of the all accused persons
without going through the material evidence especially when it was a
case of free fight, needs to be set aside.
4. It is submitted that prosecution case, in short, is that on
25/05/2011 at about 7.00 p.m., there was an altercation between Param
Patel and Chhotelal Vishwakarma on account of some dispute between
the children who were playing when Heera armed with Hasiya, Tikaram
armed with axe, Chhotelal armed with Gupti, Nanhebhai armed with an
axe, Prakash armed with lathi, Srikant armed with an iron rod, Sudama
armed with a Gupti and Gudda armed with a lathi, came to the house of
Paramlal and started abusing. House of complainant-Balchand is by the
side of house of Paramlal and when Paramlal and complainant-Balchand
came out from their house, then accused persons started beating
Balchand and Paramlal, at that time, they were intercepted by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
4 CRA-572-2016
complainant’s sister-in-law Mayarani and Paramlal’s wife Nonibai.
Accusation is that Chhotelal had given Gupti blow to Paramlal, as a
result of which his intestine had come out whereas Srikant had hit
Paramlal with a rod. Tikaram had hit Balchand on his head with an axe,
as a result of which, he started bleeding, then Sudama had hit on his back
with a Gupti. Srikant hit him on the neck with a rod, and the other
accused assaulted him with kicks and fists.
5. In the incident, sister-in-law of Balchand namely Mayarani
sustained injuries on her hands, back and shoulders whereas wife of
Paramlal namely Nonibai also sustained injuries. Paramlal had fallen
unconscious. When other villagers gathered, then accused persons ran
away. Matter was reported at Police Station Gaisabad, Distt. Damoh,
where crime was registered. Injured were taken to hospital. They were
medically examined, MLC was prepared, spot map was prepared,
statement of witnesses were recorded, accused persons were arrested and
after investigation, charge sheet was filed. Accused abjured their guilt
and pleaded their innocence, therefore, trial was commenced and the
appellants have been convicted as above.
6. In the counter case i.e. S.T. No.153/2012 allegation is that on
25/05/2011 at about 6.30 p.m. in front of house of Heeralal, Kamalkant
and Tulsi along with Balchand had caused injuries with Gupti to the
appellants, which is a sharp penetrating object with a common object
and thereafter they were beaten.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
5 CRA-572-2016
7. It has come on record that counter cases were registered against
the accused and the complainant parties.
8. Paramlal died. He was examined by Dr.R.P. Kori (PW-8) at
Government Community Health Centre, Hata where this witness had
found that there was a stab wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep
on the left part of the stomach in the lumbar region from which there
was excessive bleeding. Peritoneal tissue and omentum tissue had come
out. Condition of injured was grievous. Injury was caused by hard and
sharp edged object. Injury was homicidal caused within 6 to 8 hours of
the incident. Doctor had opined for x-ray of head and sonography of
stomach. Later on he was referred to District Hospital, Damoh to a
Surgical Specialist.
9. Dr. Sachin Jain (PW-18) had examined Paramlal on 26/05/2011 at
District Hospital, Damoh and had conducted his post-mortem. This
witness too found that there was a stab wound measuring 2 x 1 x 3 cm.
on the left hand side of the umbilicus. Apart from that, there was an
abrasion on the chest measuring 6 cm. There was an abrasion on neck
measuring 3 cm. and there was no other injury.
10. It is also submitted that thus, its a case of single injury found on
the body of Paramlal caused by Chhotelal with the help of Gupti. Other
attributed injuries are not medically corroborated. Dr. Sachin Jain (PW-
18) opined that cause of death was on account of excessive blood loss
due to internal injuries.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
6 CRA-572-2016
11. Dr. R.P. Kori (PW-8) also examined Balchand at Community
Health Centre, Hata where he found that Balchand had sustained injury
No.1 measuring 2 x 1.5 cm on the right parietal part of the head. This
witness also found one lacerated wound on the left iliac crest measuring
2 x 1 cm for which this witness advised x-ray of hips and iliac crest.
Injury No.3 was an abrasion measuring 1 x 0.5 cm on left finger caused
by hard and blunt object.
12. Similarly, Dr.R.P. Kori (PW-8) also examined Mayarani and
found that there was one swelling measuring 4 x 4 cm on the back of the
left palm. This witness advised x-ray of the left palm of the hand to
determine the nature of the injury. This witness also examined Nonibai
who was complaining of pain, but no external injury was seen. It has
come on record that report of this witness i.e. Dr. R.P. Kori (PW-8) is
collectively enclosed as Ex.P/27.
13. As far as injuries caused to Paramlal are concerned, this witness
opined that they were dangerous to life whereas injuries caused to
Nonibai are concerned, they were termed to be simple in nature. This
witness advised x-ray for Balchand and Mayarani to ascertain nature of
their injuries, however, no x-ray report is available on record to show
that injuries caused to Balchand and Mayarani were grievous in nature
or any fracture was found in them. This fact can be seen from the
evidence of Dr.R.P. Kori (PW-8) who did not depose that as per x-ray
report, any fracture was found either on the body of Balchand or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
7 CRA-572-2016
Mayarani. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that injuries
sustained by Balchand can be sustained if he collides with a hard and
blunt object. This witness admitted that injuries caused to Mayarani
could be self-inflicted also, like hitting on a wall with her hand.
14. Thus, it is pointed out that when there is single injury caused
to Paramlal which turned out to be fatal and no human blood was found
on stick i.e. Article ‘B’ recovered from Srikant, stick i.e. Article ‘C’
recovered from Prakash, axe i.e. Article ‘D’ recovered from Tikaram,
Articles ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘H’ i.e. Gupti, axe, Hasiya and Gupti recovered from
Chhotelal, Ram Prasad, Heeralal and Sudama as per FSL report
(Ex.P/40) and admittedly complainant party were the aggressors who had
first hit members of the accused party on a trivial issue of dispute
amongst the children who were playing together, then conviction of the
appellants without understanding that there was no common object and
common intention, therefore, the conviction of the appellants Section
302 read with Section 149 and Section 148, 323 read with Section 149 of
IPC is not made out.
15. Shri Abhishek Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn,
supports the impugned judgment and submits that no indulgence is
called for.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. Prosecution exhibited as many as 41 documents i.e. Ex.P/1 to
P/41. Three statement i.e. Ex.D/1 to D/3 have been brought on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
8 CRA-572-2016
17. Roshan (PW-1) deposed that Sudama S/o Ram Prasad
Vishwakarma is not known to him. Police had not interrogated Sudama
in front of him. This witness was declared hostile and he has not
supported the prosecution case whereas in the charge sheet, this witness
has been cited as witness of memorandum and seizure.
18. Balchand (PW-2) deposed that all the accused persons are
known to him as they belong to his village. Paramlal was his nephew.
Mayarani is known to him. He was in his home when in the afternoon
there was an altercation between Paramlal and Chhotelal. Cause of
altercation was in regard to play of children. In the evening, Heera,
Tikaram, Chhotelal, Nanhebhai, Sudama, Prakash, Gudda, Srikant came
to the house of Paramlal and started abusing. According to him, all the
accused were armed. This witness saw that as soon as Paramlal came
out of his house, accused had beaten Paramlal and when this witness
reached to the place of incident, he too was beaten. According to this
witness, Tikaram had hit him with an axe, Sudama with a Gupti and
Srikant by an iron rod whereas Paramlal was beaten by all the accused
persons and Chhotelal had caused an injury with Gupti in the stomach of
Paramlal. Thereafter Shankar, Guddu and Heera came and all accused
persons ran away.
19. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that children of his
elder brother namely Tulsi had a dispute with Butha alias Bhaiyalal,
Ribbu and Kallu Patel of village. In that case, he was a witness. This
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
9 CRA-572-2016
witness admitted that a compromise was affected with Ribbu and Kallu
whereas he had given evidence against Bhaiyalal, as a result of which
Bhaiyalal was convicted. In cross-examination, this witness admitted in
para-13 that on account of counter case in which accused sustained
injuries, members of complainant parties have been made accused. This
witness also admitted that his brother Kamalkant was available with him
at Sakore, but, he had not asked Kamalkant to lodge report either at Hata
or Damoh. This witness further admitted that after the incident, he had
reached Hata hospital by 8.30-9.00 p.m. and distance between Sakore to
Hata is about 14 km.
20. It has come on record and not disputed that Dehati Nalisi was
lodged at Police Station, Gaisabad on 26/05/2011 at 3.00 a.m. by Sub
Inspector Narendra Singh Yadav at the instance of Balchand, S/o Nanha
Patel as contained in Ex.P/4. This witness admitted that Sakore is
situated on Hata-Panna main road. This witness also admitted that
buses travelling from Hata to Panna pass through Sakore. This witness
deposed that all the buses travelling from Hata to Gaisabad pass through
Morachh, Khamargaur, Pawai, Muhandara through Sakore. This
witness also deposed that 15-20 buses pass through that route everyday.
This witness admitted that there is a market on every Wednesday at
Hinota and all his family members had gone to Hinota. Thereafter this
witness improvised his statement by saying that 2-4 persons had gone to
the market. This witness admitted that Param too had gone to Hinota so
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
10 CRA-572-2016
also this witness. This witness deposed that he has no information that
any dispute had taken place between Param and Chhotelal at Village
Hinota. This witness deposed that he had no knowledge that Param
and his accomplices had beaten Chhotelal or not. This witness admitted
that Param had not sustained many injuries, but, had sustained single
injury caused by Gupti.
21. In para-24, this witness admitted that incident took place at the
house of Heeralal. Thus, it is admitted that in fact complainant party
were the aggressors and they had gone to the house of Heeralal. This
witness denied the injuries sustained by Ram Prasad, Heeralal, Sudama
and Tikarma. This witness admitted several contradictions in his case-
diary statement (Ex.D/1). This witness deposed that in the Dehati Nalsi
(Ex.P/4), he had informed the Police that incident took place in the
courtyard of the deceased-Paramlal, but, if this fact is not mentioned in
the Dehati Nalsi, then he cannot say anything. This witness admitted
that he had informed that accused had abused Paramlal in his courtyard,
but, if this fact is not mentioned in his report, then he cannot say
anything about it. Though this witness deposed that all accused had
beaten Paramlal, but this fact is not medically corroborated. This
witness admitted that in the Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/4) and case-diary
statement (Ex.D/1) he has mentioned that all the accused persons had
beaten him, but, if this fact is not mentioned, then he cannot give any
explanation for the said omission. This witness admitted that he cannot
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
11 CRA-572-2016
say as to which of the weapons injuries were caused to Mayarani and
Nonibai.
22. Kamalkant (PW-3) was declared hostile. This witness deposed
that accused persons are known to him. Paramlal was his nephew.
Police had not made any proceeding or investigation or seizure in front
of him. This witness has not supported the prosecution case.
23. Rambabu (PW-4) deposed that all the accused persons are
known to him. Yadav, T.I. called this witness-Rambabu and Jamuna to
the school of Sakore village when T.I. mentioned name of Tikaram
Vishwakarma and mentioned axe in front of him and obtained signatures
of this witness and Jamuna. Thereafter T.I. had mentioned name of
Ram Prasad in front of him and then obtained signatures of these two
witnesses. This witness admitted that at the place of seizure, there was
no axe or any other weapon. Thereafter T.I. had mentioned name of
Sudama and wrote Gupti in front him, thereafter mentioned name of
Srikant and had written iron rod in front of him when this witness and
Jamuna had signed. In front of name of Gudda, lathi was written. This
witness was declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution
case.
24. Heeralal (PW-5) deposed that Paramlal was his son. Nonibai is
the wife of Paramlal and his daughter-in-law. He had gone to the
village to work as labourer. He returned at about 7.00 p.m. and had gone
to answer call of nature. When he was answering call of nature, he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
12 CRA-572-2016
heard certain cries, then he washed himself and came running to the
house where he found that Paramlal was lying on floor and Balchand
was being beaten by the accused. When he saw Paramlal to be
unconscious, he had taken off his cloths and covered him. This witness
deposed that Noni and Mayarani were also beaten by the accused
persons. After that, he turned unconscious and cannot say as to who all
came. Thereafter this witness was declared hostile. This witness is a
witness to the spot map and other proceedings contained in Ex.P/26.
This witness is also a witness to the recovery vide Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/14.
This witness though admitted his signatures on arrest memos Ex.P/20 to
P/25, but, denied that Heeralal, Ram Prasad, Chhotelal, Tikaram,
Prakash and Srikant were arrested in front of him. This witness
deposed that population of Village Sakore is about one thousand and
houses of the accused are in neighbourhood. There were good relations
with the accused persons. This witness admitted that he had refused to
participate in the police proceedings, however, Police forced him to sign
documents, otherwise threatened him to face the consequences.
25. This witness also admitted contradictions in his case-diary
statement (Ex.D/2). This witness deposed that when he returned, then
he had seen Param lying in the courtyard. This witness admitted that he
has no information as to whether altercation had already taken place
between the two families before his return. This witness also admitted
that accused had beaten Balchand for two minutes. This witness
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
13 CRA-572-2016
deposed that despite passing through Hata Police Station, he had not
made any report to the Police.
26. Vijay (PW-6) had given intimation (Ex.P/6). Paramlal tied in a
green bedsheet, was opened in front of him. This witness is a witness to
the intimation for preparation of Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P/7).
According to this witness, Paramlal already died by 11.00-12.00 p.m. on
25/11/2011. Thus, lodging of report under Section 307 of IPC on
26/05/2011 raises a doubt as to the authenticity of the report and also it
shows that it is a manipulated document.
27. Rameshwar (PW-7) had recovered one Gupti from Sudama.
This witness admitted that when TIP was carried out, then he had not
identified Sudama properly. In fact, before the Court also this witness
had wrongly identified Gudda as Sudama.
28. Dr. R.P. Kori (PW-8) had carried out MLC of injured. Injuries
sustained by Mayarani, Noni Bai and Balchand were simple in nature.
This witness found one stab wound on the peritoneal cavity of Paramlal
and no other injury was reported by this witness.
29. Arjun Singh (PW-10), Patwari, prepared spot map (Ex.P/5). In
cross-examination, this witness admitted that he had not shown it on the
spot map that as to what is the distance between the place of the incident
and the house of Paramlal. This witness admitted that house of
deceased and Sunkoo are at some distance from the place of the
incident. This witness also admitted that none of the witnesses to this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
14 CRA-572-2016
spot map (Ex.P/5) had informed that incident took place in the courtyard
of Paramlal. This witness deposed that witnesses of the place of
incident namely Nonibai, Balchand and Heeralal informed that they had
seen the incident from some distance and the distance which was
narrated by them is mentioned in Ex.P/5.
30. This witness admitted that house of Sunkoo Sen is adjacent to
the place of the incident and no interrogation was made with Sunkoo
Sen. In the spot map (Ex.P/5) house of Paramlal is shown at a distance
of 2.90 metre and that of Balchand at a distance of 3.10 metre whereas
that of Heeralal as 4.45 metre. Thus, it is evident that Arjun Singh
(PW-10) clearly stated that place of incident is not the house of
Paramlal, but is at a distance from the house of Paramlal. This proves
that aggressors were not the accused persons, but, as admitted by
Balchand (PW-2), they had gone to the house of the accused persons.
31. Smt.Mayarani (PW-12) deposed that if it is not mentioned in her
case-diary statement (Ex.D/3) that Sudama had hit Balchand with a
Gupti in his waist, then she cannot give reasons for that omission.
32. Shankarlal (PW-13) was declared hostile. This witness deposed
that when he was going from Hata to his home, then he had seen
villagers running. This witness has not supported prosecution case.
This witness admitted that he had given statement to Police personnel
but they were never read over to him. Dhaniram (PW-14) was also
declared hostile. This witness has not supported the prosecution case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
15 CRA-572-2016
33. Sunkoo (PW-16) deposed that all the accused persons are known
to him and even Paramlal is known to him. Incident took place at the
time of setting of sun. This witness was unwell and inside his house,
however, he heard cries of fight between both the parties. Both the
parties were accusing each-other. Thereafter this witness gathered
information that Paramlal died. This witness was declared hostile.
34. Narendra Singh Yadav (PW-17) carried out investigation. In
cross-examination, this witness deposed that he reached the place of
incident, Sakore in the night of 25/05/2011, but, could not give time of
his arrival. This witness deposed that he had received information on
phone at Gaisabad Police Station, but, who had given him information
and at what time, he could not state. This witness admitted that on
25/05/2011 at about 6.30 p.m., Heeralal, accused had visited him to
lodge report, then stated that he was not present in the Police Station.
This witness also admitted that accused had sustained injuries.
35. This witness admitted that on the report of Heeralal, a case was
registered by the ASI against Paramu, Balchand, Tulsi, Purushottam,
Vijay etc. In para-15, this witness admitted that when he had reached
the place of incident, he had not found any physical signs of the incident.
This witness also admitted that in the spot map (Ex.P/26), he had not
made mention of the distance of various places as are depicted in the
spot map.
36. Dr. Sachin Kumar Jain (PW-18) had conducted post-mortem on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
16 CRA-572-2016
Paramlal at District Hospital, Damoh. This witness deposed that he had
found one stab wound measuring 2 x 1 x 3 cm near the umbilicus.
37. Dr.Vishal Shukla (PW-19) deposed that patient was referred on
25/05/2011 itself at 11.45 p.m. from District Hospital, Damoh to
Jabalpur, but, he died on the way, therefore, he was brought back.
38. Asharam Chourasia (PW-20) had recorded Marg Intimation and
had brought it to Police Station, Gaisabad.
39. When these facts and chronology of events are examined in light
of the evidence of Narendra Singh Yadav (PW-17), Sub Inspector or I.O.
of the case, accused persons had reached Police Station to lodge a report
in regard to the incident which took place with them. As admitted by
Balchand (PW-2) and also Arjun Singh (PW-10), Patwari, place of the
incident is not the courtyard of Paramlal, but, in front of the house of
Heeralal, it means that complainant party were the aggressors who had
gone to the house of Heeralal. It has also come on record that there is
single injury found on the body of deceased-Paramlal which turned out
to be fatal and that is attributed to Chhotelal. Simple injuries were found
on the body of Mayarani, Balchand and Nonibai.
40. Narendra Singh Yadav (PW-17) admitted that Heeralal had
reached Police Station to lodge the report at 6.30 p.m. Thus, it is evident
that there was no unlawful assembly. Incident took place suddenly on
account of a dispute between children while they were playing when
complainant party had gone to the house of Heeralal. All the injuries
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
17 CRA-572-2016
sustained by three other injured persons are simple in nature. There is no
element of rioting in the present case. Seizures made by the prosecution
are doubtful.
41. Thus, when these facts are examined in the light of the judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghappoo Yadav and others Vs.
State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 1620 , we are of the opinion that conviction
of appellant-Chhotelal to whom an injury to Paramlal is attributed with
Gupti which turned out to be fatal, in a case of sudden altercation, will
fall under Exception-4 to Section 300 of IPC, therefore, we alter his
conviction from one under Section 302/149 of IPC to under Section 304
Part-I of IPC. As far as other accused persons are concerned, their
conviction under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 of IPC is not
made out. Similarly, their conviction under Section 148 of IPC is not
made out. However, their conviction under Section 323 read with
Section 34 of IPC is made out.
42. Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed in part and the
impugned judgment dated 12/01/2016 passed in S.T. No.374/2011 by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, Distt. Damoh is modified to
the extent that conviction of appellant No.2-Chhotelal in Cr.A.
No.4247/2021 is altered from one under Section 302/149 of IPC to
under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo ten years
rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default
stipulation of six months rigorous imprisonment whereas other accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
18 CRA-572-2016
persons namely Heeralal, Ram Prasad alias Nanhebhai, Tikaram,
Prakash, Srikant, Sudama and Gudda are acquitted of the charges under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC so also under Section 148 of
IPC, however, their conviction under Section 323 read with Section 149
of IPC on two counts is altered to one under Section 323 read with
Section 34 and they are directed to undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of
three months rigorous imprisonment on two counts each.
43. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20