Madhya Pradesh High Court
Purushottam Sharma vs Govind on 8 May, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436
1 CRA-4588-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5153 of 2023
GOVIND
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri S.S. Rajput - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3759 of 2023
MUNNA ALIAS MANNA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Faiz Ahmed Qureshi - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4588 of 2023
PURUSHOTTAM SHARMA
Versus
GOVIND AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.L. Yadav - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Faiz Ahmed Qureshi - Advocate for respondent No. 2.
None for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 4/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 12-05-2026
05:36:02 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436
2 CRA-4588-2023
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia By this common judgment, Criminal Appeal Nos. 5153/2023, 3759/2023, and 4588/2023 shall be decided.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 5153/2023 has been filed by Govind, and Criminal Appeal No. 3759/2023 has been filed by Munna @ Manna Singh against their conviction by judgment dated 27/02/2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna in S.T. No. 01/2017.
3. By impugned judgment and sentence, Trial Court has acquitted Kadam Singh of all the charges, whereas convicted the accused Govind and Munna Singh under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 326/34 and 324/34 of IPC, though they were sentenced under Section 326/34 of IPC.
4. By filing Criminal Appeal No. 4588/2023, complainant has challenged the acquittal of respondent No. 3 - Kadam Singh for offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 325/34, 326/34, 324/34 and 307/34 of IPC, as well as acquittal of Govind and Munna for offence under Sections 294 and 307/34 of IPC.
5. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeals, in short, are that on 06.07.2016 at about 16:00 hours (04:00 pm), complainant Bhanu Sharma lodged a report along with his injured brother Purushottam Sharma (PW-1) on the allegations that last year a dispute had taken place with Munna and Govind and because of that they were having personal grudge against them. Today, he had gone along with his elder brother Purushottam for grazing the cattle. As soon as they reached near their field, Munna, Govind, Rakesh and Kadam @ Bablu Meena, who were already hiding in the field of Shiv Singh, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 3 CRA-4588-2023 came out along with Farsi, Luhangi, Sang and gun in their hands and charged towards the complainant and injured and challenged them by using abusive language. When the complainant and his brother tried to run away, then they were chased by all four persons. When complainant ran towards one direction, then all four persons started chasing his elder brother Purushottam. Govind tried to assault on the head of Purushottam by Farsi, but his brother Purushottam turned around, as a result the Farsi landed on his left hand. Whereas Munna gave a Luhangi blow on the right leg of Purushottam, as a result, he fell down. Rakesh assaulted the injured on the knee of the right leg by Sang. Kadam was having a gun, and he started assaulting his brother with the handle of the gun. As a result, he sustained injuries on his hand, abdomen, etc. All four persons were shouting that Purushottam should be killed. Since the complainant was not having any weapon, therefore, he could not intervene in the matter. At that time, Jayprakash also reached there, then all four persons left. Accordingly, FIR in Crime No. 264/2016 was registered for offences under Sections 307, 324, 323, 294 r/w 34 of IPC. Injured Purushottam Sharma was sent for medical examination. His MLC report and the documents of treatment were collected. Spot map was prepared, blood-stained earth and plain earth were seized from the spot. Co-accused Rakesh Meena, who later died, was arrested on 29.07.2016. Munna was arrested on 17.10.2016, Govind was arrested on 27.07.2016, and Kadam Singh was arrested on 11.12.2016. Their arrest memos were prepared. On the basis of disclosure made by Munna, a lathi was seized. On a disclosure made by Kadam, a lathi was seized. On a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 4 CRA-4588-2023 disclosure made by Govind, a Farsi was seized, which was attached to a lathi. The seized articles were sent to FSL Gwalior, and its report was also received. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, and the police, after completing investigation, filed chargesheet under Sections 307, 324, 323, 294, 325, 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
6. The Trial Court, by order dated 07.02.2017, framed charges under Sections 294, 323/34, 325, 326/34, 324, and 307 of IPC. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
7. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Purushottam Sharma (PW-1), Jayprakash Sharma (PW-2), Bhanu Pratap Sharma (PW-3), Ravi Sharma (PW-4), Jaswant (PW-5), Vipendra Singh (PW-6), Dr. H.V. Sharma (PW-7), Dashrath Singh (PW-8), Tej Pratap Singh (PW-9), Latur Chand (PW-10), and Bhagwan Singh (PW-11).
8. Accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence.
9. By impugned judgment, the Trial Court acquitted Govind and Munna @ Manna for offence under Sections 294 and 307/34 of IPC and convicted them for offence under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 326/34, 324/34 of IPC, whereas acquitted co-accused Kadam Singh of all the charges.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5153/2023 and 3759/2023
10. Challenging the conviction of appellants/accused Govind and Munna @ Manna, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that the Trial Court committed a material illegality by holding that appellants had admitted the report of radiologist and has wrongly held that the fractures sustained by Purushottam were proved by the prosecution. It is submitted that, in fact, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 5 CRA-4588-2023 appellants had not admitted the X-ray report of injured. It is further submitted that so far as the conviction of appellants/accused for offences under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 324/34 and 326/34 of IPC is concerned, said charges were levelled for causing injury to one and the same person, i.e., Purushottam Sharma (PW-1). Since charge under Section 307/34 of IPC was also framed against appellants for making an attempt to commit murder of Purushottam Sharma (PW-1), therefore, trial of appellants for offences under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 326/34 and 324/34 of IPC was unwarranted. It is further submitted that jail sentence of seven years R.I. awarded to appellants Govind and Munna @ Manna is on a higher side, and appellants may be saddled with the jail sentence already undergone by them. It is submitted that according to the certificate issued by the Trial Court under Section 428 of CrPC, Govind had remained in jail as an undertrial for a period of 219 days, whereas Munna Singh had remained in jail as an undertrial for a period of 154 days. It is further submitted that Govind was granted bail by this Court by order dated 02.12.2025, therefore, he has undergone the actual incarceration of approximately 3.5 years, whereas Munna Singh has undergone the actual incarceration of approximately 3.4 years.
11. Per contra, appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for State as well as counsel for complainant. It is submitted that appellants have mercilessly beaten the injured. It is further submitted that bad blood was going on between the parties. Since enmity is a double-edged weapon, therefore, if on one hand it provides a motive for false implication, then on the other hand, it also provides a motive for committing offence.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 6 CRA-4588-2023
12. Heard learned counsel for parties.
13. So far as merits of the case are concerned, a solitary ground was raised by counsel for appellants that appellants had never admitted the X-ray report of injured Purushottam Sharma (PW-1, and if any such admission was made by counsel for appellants, then the same cannot be made binding on appellants because it was without their consent and knowledge.
14. Considered the submissions made by counsel for appellants.
15. Order dated 03.02.2023 recorded by the Trial Court reads as under:
"रा य ारा ी द प शमा, अपर लोक अिभयोजक उप थत।
आरोपी राकेश मृत।
आरोपी कदम िसंह, मु ना िसंह, गो वंद स हत ी राजीव ीवा तव, एडवोकेट। अिभयोजन सा ी लटू र चंद (अ.सा. 10) उप थत, उ सा ी को पर ण ितपर ण उपरांत छोड़ा गया।
अिभयोजन सा ी भगवान िसंह के संबंध म इसका ितवेदन ा हुआ है क पुिलस बल क कमी होने से सा ी का समंस िनवा हत नह ं कराया जा सका।
सा ी डॉ. िगर श येओतकर, डॉ. कुमार शांतनु नावलेकर के व जार जमानतीय वारं ट वापस ा नह ं।
इसी समय आरोपीगण क ओर से उप थत अिधव ा ारा कट कया गया क वह डॉ. िगर श येओतकर तथा रे डयोलॉ ज ट डॉ. के. शानतनु ारा आहत पु षो म शमा के कये गये इलाज व इलाज से संबंिधत पच व रपोट को वीकार कर रहे ह। वयं आरोपीगण क ओर से वे छया कये गये उ कट करण के आलोक म आहत पु षो म शमा के चोइथराम हॉ पटल इं दौर म हुये इलाज के पच पर .पी. 23 अं कत कया गया। .पी. 23 पर आरोपीगण के द तावेज वीकार कये जाने संबंधी ह ता र, द तावेज पर ह िलये गये तथा प कया गया क उ इलाज के पच को सा य म पढ़ा जा सकेगा।
आरोपीगण क ओर से उपरो .पी. 23 के द तावेज को वीकार कये जाने के कारण अिभयोजन ारा उपरो सा ी डॉ. िगर श येओतकर तथा रे डयोलॉ ज ट डॉ. के. शानतनु का पर ण बतौर अिभयोजन सा ी न कराये जाने का कट करण कया गया। उ कट करण के आलोक म सा य सूची म उ सा ीगण को छोड़े जाने क ट प अं कत क गई।
अिभयोजन ारा सा ी भगवान िसंह व सा ी भारत िसंह मीना का पर ण होना शेष बताते हुए उ सा ीगण को पुनः तलब कये जाने का िनवेदन कया गया, वचारोपरांत िनवेदन वीकार कया जाता है । सा ी भारत िसंह पता ध नालाल मीना िनवासी- ाम हं गोनी थाना चांचौड़ा तथा सा ी भगवान िसंह पता रामगोपाल मीना िनवासी- बापचा लह रया थाना चांचौड़ा को उनक उप थित क सुिन तता हे तु 500-500/- पये के जमानतीय वारं ट से तलब कया जावे।
करण अिभयोजन सा य हे तु दनांक 08.02.2023 को सम म रखा जावे। "
This ordersheet was signed by appellants Govind and Munna @ Manna Singh. Therefore, it cannot be said that the admission made by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 7 CRA-4588-2023 counsel for appellants was without instructions by appellants Govind and Munna @ Manna Singh. Admission with regard to medical papers of Purushottam Sharma, including fracture report, was made in the presence of appellants Govind and Munna. If this Court discards the admission made by appellants, then the prosecution would be deprived of its valuable right to prove the medical documents of injured Purushottam Sharma by examining the doctors. Therefore, admissions made by counsel for appellants in the presence of appellants Govind and Munna cannot be allowed to be challenged for frustrating the trial. Even the appellants had made a categorical endorsement on medical reports (Exhibit P-23) of Purshottam Sharma by specifically mentioning that report is accepted/admitted and it was countersigned by Govind and Munna @ Manna Singh also. Under these circumstances, since the medical documents of injured Purshottam Sharma were admitted by counsel for appellants in their presence, and appellants also signed the order sheet of the Trial Court without any objection, therefore, it is held that the Trial Court did not commit any mistake by exhibiting the medical papers of injured Purushottam Sharma as Exhibit P-23.
16. So far as the question of reduction of jail sentence is concerned, it is sufficient to mention here that there was enmity between the parties. According to X-ray report (Exhibit P-23) of injured Purshottam, he had suffered a fracture of proximal end of right radius bone, fracture of shafts of right tibia and fibula, fracture of the proximal end of right radius of right elbow, as well as fracture of base of 5 th metatarsal bone. Thus, it is clear that Purushottam had suffered four fractures. Even during the course of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 8 CRA-4588-2023 examination of Purushottam Sharma (PW-1), injuries were shown to the Court, which has been noted down by the Court in the deposition sheet itself. Looking to the nature of injuries mentioned in MLC report (Exhibit P-19) of Purshottam Sharma, i.e., one incised wound, one penetrating wound, one lacerated wound, and swelling with tenderness and movement painful/restricted on the right forearm middle 1/3 with corresponding fracture, it is clear that injured Purshottam Sharma (PW-1) was beaten by inflicting multiple wounds. The maximum jail sentence for an offence under Section 326 of IPC is life imprisonment.
17. Looking to the enmity between the parties and the nature and number of fractures sustained by Purushottam Sharma (PW-1), this Court is of considered opinion that the jail sentence of seven years awarded by the Trial Court cannot be said to be disproportionate to the injuries caused to injured Purshottam Sharma (PW-1).
18. So far as the submission that multiple charges should not have been framed for different injuries caused to injured Purshottam Sharma (PW-
1) is concerned, the submission has some force. The charges were framed for offences under Sections 294, 323 or in the alternative 323/34, 325 or in the alternative 325/34, 326/34, 324/34 and 307/34 of IPC. Once a charge under Section 307/34 of IPC is framed, an accused can always be convicted for a lesser offence, but not vice versa . Another mistake was committed while framing charges. In the order sheet dated 07.02.2017, name of the accused has been mentioned as Om Prakash, whereas Govind, Munna, Kadam, and Rakesh were being tried. Although the aforesaid mistake, which was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 9 CRA-4588-2023 committed in the order framing charges, was not repeated by the Trial Court in the actual charges, therefore, mentioning of the name of Om Prakash as an accused in the order dated 07.02.2017 has not caused any prejudice to appellants because in the charges, names of the accused persons were rightly mentioned. Since the framing of additional charges has not caused any prejudice to appellants, and even in light of the charge under Section 307/34 of IPC, it was not necessary for the Trial Court to frame charges under Sections 323 or in the alternative 323/34, 325 or in the alternative 325/34, 326/34 and 324/34 of IPC, no further deliberations are required as it is clearly an academic issue having no substantive effect on the outcome.
19. No other argument is advanced by counsel for appellants Govind and Munna.
Criminal Appeal No. 4588/2023
20. By the impugned judgment, Trial Court has acquitted accused Kadam Singh of the charges under Sections 294, 323 or in the alternative 323/34, 325 or in the alternative 325/34, 326/34, 324/34 and 307/34 of IPC, and has acquitted accused Govind and Munna for offences under Sections 294 and 307/34 of IPC. Therefore, this appeal shall be considered for the said acquittal.
21. Before considering the factual matrix of the case, this Court would like to consider the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court in the case of Mallappa v. State of Karnataka , reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 , has held as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 10 CRA-4588-2023 " 26. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to reappreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to reappreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the trial court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the trial court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the trial court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity.
27. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The "two-views theory" has been judicially recognised by the courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views.
However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the trial court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eye of the law.
28. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka [Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 10 SCC 230 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 19] : (SCC pp. 236-37, para 13) " 13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and on appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N. [Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N., (2002) 9 SCC 639 : 2003 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 11 CRA-4588-2023 SCC (L&S) 1494] has laid down that as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to interfere in appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the acquittal has been dealt with by this Court, thus : (SCC p. 643, para 9) '9 . ... We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. If the appreciation of evidence by the trial court did not suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of acquittal could not have been set aside.
The view taken by the learned trial court was a reasonable view and even if by any stretch of imagination, it could be said that another view was possible, that was not a ground sound enough to set aside an order of acquittal.' "
29. In Sanjeev v. State of H.P. [Sanjeev v. State of H.P., (2022) 6 SCC 294 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 522] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court analysed the relevant decisions and summarised the approach of the appellate court while deciding an appeal from the order of acquittal. It observed thus :
(SCC p. 297, para 7) " 7 . It is well settled that:
7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka [Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 586] and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. [Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166 : (2021) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436
12 CRA-4588-2023 1 SCC (Cri) 395] ).
7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P. [Atley v. State of U.P., 1955 SCC OnLine SC 51 : AIR 1955 SC 807] ).
7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of Kerala [Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320] )."
The Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Others v. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2008) 11 SCC 186 , has held as under:
"13. The principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While the High Court can review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not interfere with the acquittal by the trial court unless there are strong reasons based on evidence which can dislodge the findings arrived at by the trial court, which were the basis for the acquittal. The High Court has to give due importance to the conclusions of the trial court, if they had been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court will interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where the trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly. If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case. The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (vide Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra [(1978) 4 SCC 371 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 1] , Babu v. State of U.P. [(1983) 2 SCC 21 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 332] , Awadhesh v. State of M.P. [(1988) 2 SCC 557 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 361] , Thanedar Singh v. State of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 13 CRA-4588-2023 M.P. [(2002) 1 SCC 487 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 153] and State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [(2003) 8 SCC 180 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1965] ). Keeping the said principles in view, we will examine the evidence to find out whether the findings of the trial court were not based on evidence and whether there was justification for the High Court to interfere with the decision of the trial court."
The Supreme Court in the cases of Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 461 , Ramji Surjya Padvi and Another v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 629 , Anil Kumar v. State of U.P., reported in (2004) 13 SCC 257 , and Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P., reported in (2004) 11 SCC 410 , has laid down the same principle of law.
Thus, it is clear that if two views are possible and the view taken by the Trial Court is not perverse, then the Appellate Court cannot overturn the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
Acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Govind and Munna, respectively, for offence under Section 294 of IPC.
22. While acquitting respondents Govind and Munna for offence under Section 294 of IPC, the Trial Court has held that witnesses have merely stated that abusive language was used, but they have not disclosed the exact words uttered by accused persons, There is nothing in the evidence of Purushottam Lal Sharma (PW-1), Bhanu Pratap Sharma (PW-3) that any annoyance was caused. Therefore, acquittal of respondents for offence under Section 294 of IPC does not call for any interference.
Acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Govind and Munna Singh, respectively, for offence under Section 307 of IPC.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 14 CRA-4588-2023
23. Bhanu Pratap Sharma (PW-3) had alleged in the FIR (Exhibit P-
22) that Govind tried to assault on the head of injured Purushottam Lal by Farsi, but as his brother turned around, therefore, it landed on his left hand. Statement of Purushottam Sharma (PW-1) was recorded after one month, i.e., on 06.08.2016, whereas incident took place on 06.07.2016. Purshottam Sharma (PW-1) stated that he was being chased and, as soon as he stopped, Govind tried to assault him on his head, but he bent down, as a result Farsi landed on his left hand, whereas Bhanu Pratap Sharma (PW-3) stated that when Govind tried to give a Farsi blow on the neck of his brother Purshottam Sharma, then his brother tried to save himself as a result he sustained Farsi injury on his left hand. It is not the case of Purshottam Sharma that he tried to save himself by putting forward his hand. It is his case that as he bent down, therefore, he sustained injury on his left hand, whereas it is the case of Bhanu Pratap (PW-3) that Govind tried to give a Farsi blow on the neck of injured, and when the injured tried to save himself, then he sustained injury. Although there might not be much difference, but as already pointed out, this Court is hearing this appeal against the acquittal of Govind and Munna @ Manna for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC.
24. It is true that in order to make out an offence under Section 307 of IPC, the nature of injury is not required but the only important ingredient is knowledge and intention. On one hand, Purshottam Sharma (PW-1) had stated that Govind tried to give a Farsi blow on his head, whereas Bhanu Pratap Sharma (PW-3) had stated that Govind had tried to give a Farsi blow on the neck of injured Purshottam. Purshottam Sharma (PW-1) had stated Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 15 CRA-4588-2023 that as he bent down, therefore, he sustained injury on his left hand, whereas Bhanu Pratap Sharma (PW-3) had stated that when Purshottam Sharma (PW-
1) tried to save himself, then he sustained injury on his left hand, this Court is of considered opinion that if the Trial Court has acquitted respondents Govind and Munna for offence under Section 307 of IPC, then at the most it can be said that it was one of the possible views out of the two views which were possible, and once the Trial Court has taken a view in favour of accused persons, then in absence of any perversity, this Court should not interfere with such findings.
25. Accordingly, acquittal of respondents Govind and Munna for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC is hereby affirmed.
Acquittal of Kadam Singh
26. Since Kadam Singh has been acquitted of all the charges, therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to consider the evidence led by prosecution against Kadam Singh.
27. Purushottam Sharma (PW-1) has stated that Kadam Singh was having a lathi, whereas in his police statement (Exhibit D-1), he had stated that Kadam Singh was having a gun. In the police statement (Exhibit D-1), Purshottam Sharma (PW-1) had stated that he was assaulted by Kadam Singh by the handle of his gun, whereas in his Court evidence, Purshottam Sharma had stated that he was assaulted by Kadam Singh by a lathi.
28. Bhanu Pratap Sharma (PW-3), who had lodged the FIR (Exhibit P-
22), had stated in the FIR that Kadam was having a gun and he also assaulted injured Purushottam Sharma by the handle of the gun, whereas Bhanu Pratap Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 16 CRA-4588-2023 Sharma (PW-3) has not assigned any role to Kadam Singh in his evidence. He had merely stated that Govind, Munna, Rakesh and Kadam were hiding in the bushes. In his Court evidence, he has stated that Govind gave a Farsi blow which landed on the left hand of Purushottam Sharma, whereas Munna gave a Luhangi blow on the right leg of Purushottam, as a result, he fell down. Rakesh gave a lathi blow on the leg, whereas Govind assaulted on the right hand of the injured with the blunt side of Farsi, and at that time, his brother Jayprakash also reached there, and after noticing them, accused persons ran away.
29. From the deposition sheet, it appears that Bhanu Pratap Sharma (PW-3) was partially declared hostile, and in his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that Govind was having a gun, but immediately, he clarified that he was also having a Farsi. He further admitted that no gunshot was fired, but he, on his own, claimed that his brother was waylaid by show of gun. In his cross-examination, Bhanu Sharma has admitted that their enmity with the accused persons is going on since 2015, and on the report lodged by Govind and Munna, trial under Section 307 of IPC is going on. He further admitted that his brother Purushottam Sharma (PW-1) has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
30. Purushottam Sharma (PW-1) has stated that he has given the evidence as per the FIR lodged by Bhanu because he had witnessed the incident. He was confronted with his improvement in his examination-in- chief that it was Kadam Singh who gave a lathi blow to him, but he could not Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 17 CRA-4588-2023 explain why that fact was not mentioned in his police statement (Exhibit D-
1). He further disowned the allegation that Kadam Singh was having a gun. He further claimed that in his police statement, he had informed the police that he was assaulted by Kadam with a lathi and not by the handle of the gun, but could not explain why the said fact was not mentioned by the police in his police statement (Exhibit D-1).
Thus, so far as the role played by Kadam Singh is concerned, there is a vital improvement in the evidence of Purushottam (PW-1) as well as Bhanu Pratap (PW-3).
31. Jayprakash Sharma (PW-2), who also reached on the spot while the assault was going on, has stated that he could not identify Kadam, but one more person was there.
32. Therefore, the evidence, which has been led by the prosecution against respondent No. 3 Kadam, is shaky, and the findings recorded by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse.
33. As already pointed out, if two views are possible, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction in an appeal against acquittal, cannot substitute its own findings.
34. So far as offence under Section 294 of IPC is concerned, this Court, while considering appeal against acquittal of Govind and Munna @ Manna, has already uphold the acquittal.
35. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court did not commit any mistake by acquitting Kadam Singh of all the charges.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 12-05-2026 05:36:02 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15436 18 CRA-4588-2023
36. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 4588/2023 filed by complainant is dismissed against all three respondents, i.e., Govind, Munna @ Manna, and Kadam Singh.
37. Criminal Appeal Nos. 5153/2023 and 3759/2023 filed by Govind and Munna, respectively, are also dismissed.
38. Appellants Govind and Munna are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court on or before 17.06.2026 for undergoing the remaining jail sentence.
39. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court along with the record for necessary information and compliance.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
AKS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 12-05-2026
05:36:02 PM