Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
1 CRA-14237-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14237 of 2024
VINOD AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Kumar Naveria - Advocate for appellants.
Ms. Shweta Yadav - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Reserved on : 17/02/2026
Delivered on : 11/03/2026
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.21227/2025, which is first application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to appellants.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.21227/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
heard finally.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
2 CRA-14237-2024
4.This criminal appeal under Section 415 of B.N.S.S., 2023 (old
Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.) is filed by the appellants being aggrieved of
the judgment dated 13.03.2024 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge,
Sagar (M.P.) in S.T. No.470/2022, whereby the learned trial Court
has convicted the appellants under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced
them to undergo Life Imprisonment each with fine of Rs.1,000/- each,
with a default stipulation to undergo R.I. for 2 years each.
5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the intervening night
of 30.07.2022 and 31.07.2022 at about 1:48 a.m., complainant Sonu
Ahirwar lodged a report at Police Station Sanodha regarding the murder
of his brother Nilesh Ahirwar. It is alleged that there was prior enmity
between the deceased Nilesh Ahirwar and accused Kanchu alias
Ramakant Ahirwar arising out of a dispute that had taken place in March
2022. On 30.07.2022 at about 9:15 p.m., when the complainant Sonu
Ahirwar and Vikku Ahirwar were standing near their house and the
deceased Nilesh Ahirwar was standing on the main road near the house,
the accused persons Kanchu alias Ramakant Ahirwar, Pravesh Adivasi,
Vinod Adivasi, Santosh Adivasi, Hallebhai Adivasi armed with sticks
and Nanhelal Adivasi armed with an iron rod together came to deceased
Nilesh. They allegedly abused the deceased and threatened him stating
that they would not leave him today. Thereafter, Nanhelal Adivasi
allegedly struck Nilesh on his head with an iron rod. Pravesh Adivasi
also assaulted him on his head with a stick, due to which he fallen down.
The remaining accused persons then allegedly assaulted him with sticks.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
3 CRA-14237-2024
When the complainant, Vikki Ahirwar and Umesh Ahirwar ran to save
deceased Nilesh, then they fled from the spot. The injured Nilesh
Ahirwar was taken to Tili Hospital, Sagar, where the doctor declared
him dead. The body was kept in the mortuary and thereafter the FIR at
Crime No.289/2022 was registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, and
149 of the IPC. During investigation, an inquest was conducted, a spot
map was prepared, blood-stained and plain soil were seized from the
scene and a post-mortem examination was performed. The accused
persons were arrested on different dates and on the basis of their
memorandum statements, sticks and an iron rod were recovered.
Statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation.
6. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the impugned
judgment is contrary to law and evidence on record. It is submitted that
the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate material
contradictions and omissions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses,
who are related and interested witnesses, without independent
corroboration. There is no specific overt act attributed to the appellant
except general and omnibus allegations, and the prosecution has failed
to establish the existence of an unlawful assembly or common object so
as to attract Section 149 IPC. The medical evidence attributes the fatal
head injury to another co-accused and in the absence of proof of
common object, the appellant cannot be held vicariously liable for the
offence under Section 302 IPC. It is also contended that the recovery of
alleged weapons is doubtful and not properly proved in accordance with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
4 CRA-14237-2024
law. The seizure witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution
case. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court has not properly
considered the defence evidence and has failed to grant the benefit of
doubt to the appellant. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment
of conviction dated 13.03.2024 be set aside and the appellant be
acquitted from the charge, or in the alternative, the conviction be
modified to a lesser offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
7. Ms. Shweta Yadav, Deputy Advocate General for the State
opposes the prayer and submits that learned trial Court has in depth dealt
with this aspect and has held that looking to the manner in which
offence was committed, it will not be a case under Section 304 Part-II of
IPC.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. Sonu Ahirwar (PW-1), who is brother of deceased Nilesh,
deposed that the incident occurred on 30 July 2022 at about 9:15 p.m.,
when his brother Nilesh was returning home from work. He stated there
was a previous dispute between Nilesh and Kanchu alias Ramakant and
on the date of the incident, the accused persons arrived, abused Nilesh
by saying that he was becoming a big goon (big gunda) and Kanchu
allegedly threatened that he would not let him live. He stated that Vinod
struck Nilesh on the head with a rod, Pravesh assaulted him with a stick
or pipe and Nannelal kicked him, causing him to fall, as a result of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
5 CRA-14237-2024
which Nilesh sustained bleeding injuries on his head and injuries on his
back and other parts of his body. He further stated that Santosh and
Halle did not intervene to save his brother or raise an alarm. He stated
that when he reached the spot along with Vittu and Umesh, the accused
persons fled. Thereafter, his brother Bablu, Virendra, his sister Imarti,
his father Hiralal and his mother Gulabrani also arrived. Virendra called
the Dial-100 vehicle and Nilesh was taken to Tili Hospital, where the
doctor declared him dead and kept the body in the mortuary. He stated
that he along with his father went to the police station and lodged the
First Information Report (Ex. P-1) regarding the incident. On the basis
of his report, a case (Ex. P-2) was registered. The police had prepared
the Naksha Panchnama Ex.P-4) of the body of his brother Nilesh in his
presence. After post-mortem police handed over the dead body of his
brother Nilesh. The receipt of the dead body is Ex. P-5. His signature is
on the spot map (Ex. P-6) and on the seizure memo (Ex. P-7). This
witness has been turned hostile by the prosecution and asked the leading
question and he deposed that Nilesh had previous dispute with Kanchu
@ Ramakant. He also admitted that accused arrived and started abusing
his brother saying that he is becoming big goon (big gunda). In para 4 of
his cross-examination he admitted that Hallebhai and Santosh did not
assault Nilesh and told their name in First Information Report because
they did not intervene during the altercation.
10. Bablu Ahirwar (PW-2), the brother of the deceased Nilesh,
deposed that on 31 July 2022 at about 8:30 p.m., while he was sleeping
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
6 CRA-14237-2024
on a plot near his house, he heard his brother Nilesh shouting and ran to
the spot, where he saw several persons including Vinod, Pravesh,
Santosh, Nanhelal, Kanchu alias Ramakant, and Halle were surrounding
and assaulting Nilesh. He stated that Vinod struck Nilesh with a stick
and Nanhelal hit him with a rod on his head. This witness has also been
declared hostile by the prosecution, but all suggestions which were
given by the Additional Public Prosecutor to this witness, he denied. In
para 5 of his cross-examination he admitted that when he reached the
spot, the assailants were running away.
11. Abhay (PW-4) deposed that on 30.07.2022 between 9:09 PM
and 9:30 PM, while he was standing at a shop to purchase groceries, he
heard shouting from the road. Upon reaching the spot, he saw that
accused Pravesh, Vinod, and Nanhelal were assaulting Nilesh. Shortly
thereafter, Nilesh’s elder brother Sonu arrived and shouted, upon which
the accused fled from the spot. Nilesh’s younger brother informed the
police. The Dial-100 vehicle arrived, and Nilesh was taken to BMC
Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. The witness further stated
that police had seized a rod from Nanhelal and stick from Vinod and
Pravesh and the seizure memos Ex.P-15, Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-20 were
prepared in his presence. This witness has also been declared hostile and
admitted that at the time of incident Kanchu @ Ramakant, Pravesh and
Vinod had come armed with sticks. He also admitted that Nannelal
struck Nilesh on the head with a rod, Pravesh, Vinod and Ramakant had
also assaulted him with stick.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
7 CRA-14237-2024
12. Virendra (PW-5), brother of the deceased Nilesh, also
supported the version of Sonu Ahirwar (PW-1) and Bablu Ahirwar
(PW-2) in his examination in chief.
13. Umesh Ahirwar (PW-7) did not support the prosecution
version, therefore, this witness has been declared hostile and asked the
leading question, he did not say anything against the accused persons.
14. Gulabrani (PW-9), the mother of the deceased Nilesh, deposed
that she heard Nilesh shouting that Nanhelal and Pravesh were beating
him. She immediately called her eldest son Sonu and she reached the
spot and saw that Pravesh and Vinod were having stick and Nanhelal
was having a rod and all of them were beating Nilesh.
15. Imarti (PW-10), sister of the deceased Nilesh, also
corroborated the version of Gulabrani (PW-9). After perusal of her
examination, it appears that as per Ex.D-1, the statement of this witness
which was recorded by police during the investigation, she told that she
did not see to anyone to beat Nilesh, but before the Court she tried to
show herself as an eye witness.
16. Kallu Ahirwar (PW-3) and Santosh Ahirwar (PW-6) both
witnesses are concerned to memorandum, seizure memo and arrest
memo of the accused persons and both witnesses only admitted there
signatures on memorandum, seizure memo and arrest memo, but they
did not support the seizure memorandum and arrest memo, therefore,
both witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution and asked
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
8 CRA-14237-2024
the leading question, but they did not say anything in support of the
prosecution.
17. Sanjay Rishishwar (PW-19) deposed that on 30.07.2022, he
was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Sanodha. On the night of
30-31.07.2022, the complainant Sonu Ahirwar came to the police
station and orally reported about the incident. On the basis of the oral
report of Sonu Ahirwar, he registered a Crime No. 289/2022 under
Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR is
Ex.P-1. After registration of the FIR, he prepared the Inquest Intimation
Form (Ex.P-2). Thereafter, he went to the hospital and prepared Safina
Form (Ex.P-3) for conducting the inquest proceedings. He prepared the
Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P-4) in the presence of witnesses. In the
inquest proceedings, it was found that the deceased died due to head
injury. For determining the exact cause of death, he filled out the post-
mortem requisition form and sent the dead body to the District Hospital
for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem was conducted by the
doctors, who opined that the deceased had sustained head injuries caused
by a hard and blunt object. The post-mortem report is Ex.P-28. After
completion of the post-mortem, the dead body was handed over to the
family members of the deceased and the delivery panchnama (Ex.P-5)
of dead body was prepared. On 31.07.2022, he visited the place of
occurrence and prepared the spot map (Ex.P-6) and seized blood-stained
soil and plain soil and prepared the seizure memo (Ex.P-7). On the same
date, he recorded the statement of the complainant Sonu Ahirwar and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
9 CRA-14237-2024
the statements of witnesses Abhay alias Bittu Ahirwar and Umesh
Ahirwar as per their version. On 01.08.2022, he interrogated the accused
Santosh, Balkishan alias Halle Adivasi and recorded the memorandum
statements (Ex.P-10) and (Ex.P-11). He seized a bamboo stick
measuring about 3 feet 10 inches at the instance of accused Santosh
Adivasi and prepared seizure mem (Ex.P-13). Similarly, a bamboo stick
measuring about 3 feet 11 inches was recovered at the instance of
accused Balkishan alias Halle Bhai and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-
14 in the presence of witnesses. On 02.08.2022, he interrogated accused
Pravesh Adivasi and his memorandum statement was recorded vide
Ex.P-12 and a wooden stick measuring about 4 feet 8 inches was
recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-15. On 04.08.2022, he
interrogated accused Vinod Adivasi and recorded his memorandum
statement vide Ex.P-22 and at his instance a bamboo stick measuring
about 5 feet 5 inches was recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-
19. On the same date, he also interrogated accused Nanhelal Adivasi and
recorded his memorandum statement vide Ex.P-21 and at his instance
seized an iron rod measuring about 6 feet 7 inches and prepared seizure
memo (Ex.P-20). On 05.08.2022, he recorded the statements of
witnesses Smt. Gulabrani and Smt. Imarti as per their version. On
26.08.2022, he recorded the statements of Hiralal and on 31.08.2022, the
statement of witness Virendra as per their version. He also recorded the
statements of other witnesses namely Parvati Ahirwar, Lakhan Ahirwar,
Than Singh Nagvanshi, Sauram Ahirwar, Umesh Ahirwar, Deepak
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
10 CRA-14237-2024
Pataria, Gubandi Patel, Param Jyoti Narware, and Raj Singh Bundela as
per their version.
18. Dr. Ajay Yadav (PW-11) deposed that on 30.07.2022, he was
posted as a Medical Officer at the District Hospital, Sagar. On that day
at about 11:15 p.m., deceased Nilesh Ahirwar was brought to the
hospital by the Dial-100 vehicle in dead condition. After receiving the
body, he informed Police Station Gopalganj and the body was kept in
the mortuary. The information sent by him is Ex.P-31.
19. Kamlesh Devaliya (PW-12) deposed that on 31.07.2022, he
was posted as a Head Constable at Police Station Sanodha. On that day,
Constable K-1804 Sunil produced before him certain sealed articles
brought from the District Hospital, Sagar relating to deceased Nilesh
Ahirwar. These articles included one sealed container containing the
kidney, spleen, liver and lungs of the deceased, one sealed container
containing the small intestine and viscera of the deceased, one sealed
container containing nail scrapings from the right hand of the deceased,
one sealed container containing nail scrapings from the left hand of the
deceased, one small glass bottle containing a solution sample, one sealed
packet containing the clothes of the deceased and three sealed samples
from District Hospital, Sagar. After receiving these articles at the police
station, he seized them and prepared the seizure memo Ex.P-32.
20. Dr. Ashish Kumar Jain (PW-8) stated that on 31.07.2022, he
was posted as a Medical Officer at the District Hospital, Sagar. He
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
11 CRA-14237-2024
conducted the postmortem of the deceased. As per his opinion, the death
of deceased Nilesh was caused due to head injury and the injuries were
sustained within 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. His
post-mortem report is Ex. P-28. He admitted in para 9 of his cross-
examination that the deceased had only one injury on the right side of
the head and one scratch on the left knee and except said injuries, there
was no other injuries on the body and also admitted that apart from said
injury, he did not find any other injury on the deceased’s body.
21. Asharampal (PW-17) did not supported the prosecution
version.
22. After analyzing the entire evidence available on record, this
Court finds that the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of
the IPC requires reconsideration.
23. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly
Sonu Ahirwar (PW-1), Bablu Ahirwar (PW-2), Abhay (PW-4) and
Gulabrani (PW-9), it appears that the incident occurred suddenly when
the accused persons reached the spot and an altercation took place
between them and the deceased. The prosecution evidence also reveals
that there was previous enmity between the deceased and accused
Kanchu @ Ramakant. However, the material on record does not show
that the accused persons had come with a pre-planned intention to
commit the murder of the deceased. It is also significant that the medical
evidence given by Dr. Ashish Kumar Jain (PW-8) indicates that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
12 CRA-14237-2024
deceased had sustained only one injury on the head and a scratch on the
knee, and except for these injuries no other injuries were found on the
body of the deceased. The doctor has opined that the death occurred due
to the head injury caused by a hard and blunt object.
24. The existence of a solitary fatal injury assumes importance
while determining the nature of the offence. In addition, the evidence on
record indicates that the fatal head injury was specifically attributed to
one of the co-accused and the role attributed to the other accused
persons is limited to participation in the quarrel and assault with
sticks. The prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the appellants shared the common intention or common object
to commit the murder of the deceased. The incident appears to have
occurred in the course of a sudden altercation arising out of previous
animosity and there is nothing on record to show that the appellants
intended to cause the death of the deceased or to cause such bodily
injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. However, considering the manner in which the assault was made
and the nature of the injury caused to the deceased, it can reasonably be
inferred that the accused persons had the knowledge that their acts were
likely to cause death, though they did not have the intention to cause
death, therefore, this case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC,
which provides that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed
without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion and
without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
13 CRA-14237-2024
unusual manner.
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jugut Ram v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 520, held has under: –
“7. In Chamru v. State of M.P.; AIR 1954 SC 652, the
appellant dealt a blow on the head of the deceased with a lathi
and which proved fatal. The injury was medically opined,
sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. Conviction
under Section 302 IPC followed. This Court observed as
follows: (AIR p.653, para 5-6)
“5. It now remains to consider whether the
offence which he committed falls within the first
part or the second part of Section 304 of the Indian
Penal Code. When the fatal injury was inflicted by
the appellant on the head of the deceased by only
one blow given in the manner alleged by the
prosecution it could as well be that the act by
which death was caused was not done with the
intention of causing death or of causing such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The act
appears to have been done with the knowledge that
it was likely to cause death, but without any
intention to cause death or to cause such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death within theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1939514 CRA-14237-2024
meaning of Part II of Section 304 of the Indian
Penal Code.
6. We accordingly allow the appeal to this extent
that the conviction of the appellant under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of
transportation for life awarded to him will be set
aside, but the appellant will be convicted of having
committed the offence under Section 304 Part II of
the Indian Penal Code and will be sentenced to
seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.””
26. In the light of above law and facts of this case taken into
consideration, we are of the view that appellants have been able to make
out a case within the fourth corners of Exception-4 to Section 300 of
IPC and, accordingly, we have no hesitation in altering the conviction of
the appellant from one under Section 302 of IPC to under Section 304
Part-II of IPC. Thus, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302
of IPC is hereby altered to Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Hence, impugned
judgment dated 13/03/2024 passed by the learned 8th District and
Sessions Judge, Sagar, District Sagar (M.P.) in S.T. No.470/2022 is
modified to the extent that instead of Section 302 of the IPC, the
appellants are convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and they are
directed to undergo R.I. for 7 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with a
default stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for six months.
27. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the appellants is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19395
15 CRA-14237-2024
allowed in part to the extent indicated above.
28. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
29. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
sp/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 11-03-2026
19:39:51
