Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajit Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074
1 CRA-2314-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 12th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2314 of 2024
RAMMILAN SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrkar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3539 of 2024
AJIT KUMAR SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrkar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal These appeals are filed respectively by the accused persons and the convicted appellants and the complainant, respectively, challenging the judgment dated 03.02.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.125/2015 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Singrauli, Headquarter Waidhan in Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 2 CRA-2314-2024 S.T. No.178/2015 whereby appellants Rammilan Sahu and Amar Kumar Sahu have been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with default stipulation of 1 year rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC (3 counts) with 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- (One Thousand Only) under each counts with default stipulation of 1 month rigorous imprisonment under each head. They have also been convicted under Section 452 of IPC with 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation of 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
2. Another appeal has been filed by the Ajit Kumar Sahu being aggrieved of judgment dated 03.02.2024 passed in S.T. No.178/2015 whereby learned trial Court giving benefit of doubt recorded acquittal in favour of Budhairam S/o Late Janaklal Sahu, Ram Ashok @ Bablu S/o Janaklal Sahu so also Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Janaklal Sahu from the charges under Section 325/34 (2 counts), 324/34, 294 and 506 Part- II of IPC.
3. These appeals are taken up for analogous hearing.
4. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the convicted appellants submits that present is a case of acquittal whereby learned trial Court in a case of free fight has wrongly implicant the present appellants.
5. It is submitted that as per the prosecution story, incident took place on 25.04.2015 when complainant Sunita Sahu recorded an oral report that on 22.04.2015, there was marriage of daughter of Rammilan. Baraat had come when accused Ajay Sahu and Ajit Sahu accused her brother Sanjay, that he Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 3 CRA-2314-2024 was indulging in eve teasing and on such account he was beaten.
6. Sunita Sahu further reported that at about 7:00 am wife of Rammilan Sahu had complained to father of the complainant namely Shri Janaklal Sahu that his son Sanjay had stolen two mattresses when at about 8.30 pm accused Rammilan Sahu, Amar Kumar Sahu and Ajit Kumar Sahu came in front of the complainant's house and started abusing them. When complainant closed the door, then Ajit had kicked the door to open it. Thereafter, all the three accused persons started beating her father Janaklal with lathi, danda and tangi.
7. It is further reported that when her brother Sanjay and she herself ran to intervene, then they too were beaten by three accused persons, when her step brother Budhai intervened, then he too was beaten. On raising an alarm, neighbourers had come to their rescue when accused persons left them. It is mentioned that if she herself and her brothers could not have intervened, then Rammilan, Amar Kumar and Ajit Kumar would have killed Janaklal. It is also mentioned that on account of such marpeet, complainant suffered injury on her left hand, Janaklal suffered injury on his head whereas Budhailal suffered injury on his head and leg. They were taken to Nehru Hospital where during treatment report was lodged.
8. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, Sunita Sahu, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-5) was recorded and on the basis of the Dehati Nalishi, case Crime No.130/2015 was registered at Police Station - Vindhyanagar under Section 452, 294, 323, 307, 506 and 34 of IPC. This FIR is available on record as Ex.P-34. Matter was investigated. I.O. had visited Nehru Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 4 CRA-2314-2024 Shatabdi Hospital, Jayant, Singrauli from where Janaklal and Budhai were referred to a higher center at Banaras for treatment. Accused were taken in custody. Their memorandum statements Ex.P-16 and P-17 were recorded. Recovery was made vide Exhibits P-2, P-15, P-18 and P-19, then they were arrested vide Ex.P-20 and P-21. It has come on record that one of the accused persons was a Juvenile and therefore, he was tried separately.
9. It has come on record that during treatment Janaklal died at Varanasi on 13.05.2015, when Section 302 of IPC was added. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 302/34, 323/34 (2 counts), 452, 427, 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC on 09.07.2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Waidhan, District Singrauli from where matter was committed to the Sessions Court and when accused abjured their guilt, then trial was conducted and appellants have been sentenced as above.
10. It is submitted that in their statements under Section 313 of IPC accused pleaded innocence and stated that, in fact, it was complainant party which had stopped Rammilan and had entered into an altercation and beaten Rammilan when Amar reached the spot along with his brother Ajit to save Rammilan causing grave injuries, therefore, it's a case of self-defence, thus the accused persons be acquitted. In defence, Rammilan examined Kishori Mishra (DW-1) and he himself as DW-2.
11. Reading from the evidence of Dr. Sandeep Lal (PW-7), it is pointed out that Dr. Sandeep Lal has stated that on 25.04.2015 he was working as a Medical Officer at Northern coalfield Limited, Nehru Hospital. At about 11:40 pm injured Janaklal Sahu was brought to him. He had given intimation Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 5 CRA-2314-2024 to Police Chowki, Jayant on 26.04.2015, vide Ex.P-5, which contains his signatures from A to A part. At 11:45 pm, Budhairam Sahu was also brought to him. He had given intimation in this regard vide Ex.P-6 and, thereafter, started treatment. He had prepared an injury report of Budhairam Sahu, according to which there was a lacerated wound over right eyebrow with swelling in the eyelet. Report is Ex.P-7, thereafter surgeon had treated him. This doctor had prepared case history, which is verified by CMS Incharge, Dr. I.B Mishra. This witness stated that he had also prepared injury report of Janak Lal Sahu, who had sustained a lacerated incised wound on his head, there were two cut marks one measuring 6" and 7" and another measuring 3", there was swelling around that the left eye, his injury report is Ex.P-8.
12. It is submitted that Dr. Sandeep Lal (PW-7), in his cross-examination, stated that he had not found any injury on the stomach region of Janaklal. This witness further admitted that the injuries which were sustained by Budhairam were simple in nature. This witness further stated that Janaklal if would have got proper medical care, then proper treatment, his life could have been saved. Then, on his own, doctor stated that if Janaklal would have been sent to a higher center, with then his life could have been saved. This doctor further stated that injury No.1 found on the body of Janaklal could have been caused due to fall or collision with a sharp object.
13. In para 4, this witness again stated that when Janaklal was discharged from his hospital, he had no injury in his abdomen. He further stated that B.P. and Pulse of Budhai Ram were normal at the time of discharge. Then, he stated that B.P. and Pulse were low as far as, Janaklal is concerned and he Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 6 CRA-2314-2024 was unconscious.
14. This witness admitted that he had found 8" long and 4" wide injury behind left ear of Ajit Kumar, caused by a sharp object. That injury appeared to be homicidal in nature.
15. It is submitted that Dr. Santosh Gupta (PW-19) in the Department of Forensic Medicine, IMSBHU, stated that at the relevant time he was working as a Ortho Surgeon at SSPG Hospital, Kabir Chauraha, Varanasi. He was part of the team which conducted postmortem of Janak S/o Lolo on 13.05.2015. Deceased was aged about 57 years. In external examination, they found that there was a head injury and acute intestinal perforation for which he was admitted at Laxmi Medical and Surgical Care Center Limited, Varanasi, where he died on 12.05.2015. There was post stitched wound, gapping and healing wound 9cm x 1.5 cm on the top of the head in the middle and on opening there was fracture of parietal and temporal bone, so also fracture of occipital bone. There was a stitched wound over the abdomen 7cm below xiphisternum. There was a healing wound measuring 3cm x 2 cm on the right elbow. There was a colostomy wound (surgical) 6 cm in diameter on the right side of the stomach, 21 cm's below right nipple. Death had occurred due to septicemia, comma, head injury and intestinal perforation.
16. In cross-examination, this Doctor admitted that initial prescriptions of the treatment were not enclosed. The surgical wound which was available in stomach was of such a nature that such patients are not given food for 7 to 10 days till that would is repaired and if such person is given food without Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 7 CRA-2314-2024 medical advise, then it can be life threatening. Thus, it is submitted that, firstly, Dr. Sandeep Lal (PW-7) has admitted that there was no injury on the stomach, secondly, that intestinal blockage could have been for various reasons, including high dosage of antibiotic etc.. There was single injury on head which turned out to be fatal and, therefore, placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.409/2017 (Kumar Vs. State of Represented by Inspector of Police), where it is held that if injuries are not explained then that cannot be attributed to the accused.
17. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Maniben Vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 8 SCC 796 , where it is held that if death occurs due to septicemia, then case will fall under 4th Exception to Section 300 and will be covered under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
18. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Jayaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1976) 2 SCC 788 , where it is held where injury were 'likely' to cause death and death resulting after nine days, prosecution failed to objectively prove that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and, therefore, conviction should be altered to from one under Section 302 to Section 304 of IPC.
19. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor submits that it's a case of brutal fight, no indulgence is called for.
20. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2014 (Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujarat), to submit that Section 304 of IPC has two parts, namely, 304 Part-I and 304 Part-II. The distinction between these two parts of Section 304 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 8 CRA-2314-2024 of IPC is required to be considered having regard to the provisions of Section 299 and 300 of IPC. Whether the offender had intention to cause death or he had no such intention brings out the vital distinction.
21. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record. Budhairam Sahu (PW-1) stated that accused are known to him, deceased Janaklal was his father, complainant Sunita Sahu is his sister and Sanjay Sahu is his brother. Incident took place on 25.04.2015 at about 8:30 pm. Incident took place in front of his house. His father's house is at a distance of about 100 meters from his house. He was at his house, when he heard voice of accused persons who were speaking at a high pitch and abusing, then he had reached the place of the incident. He admits that when he had reached the place of the incident that time accused had already beaten his father and his father was lying on the floor. At that time accused were beating his sister Sunita and brother Sanjay. Rammilan was holding a sabbal, Amar was armed with an iron pipe and Ajit was having a sharp edged balua. According to this witness, all the three accused persons had beaten his father. Thereafter, it is alleged that when this witness reached the place of the incidence, then Rammilan had hit on his right eye with a sabbal. This witness had fallen down when police vehicle had come and had taken him to Nehru Hospital, Jayant for treatment. His father too was taken to Nehru Hospital, Jayant for treatment. From Nehru Hospital, they were referred to a higher center at Banaras, namely, Banaras Laxmi Hospital, where both were treated. His father was treated for about 18 days whereas he was treated for 8-9 days at Banaras. During treatment his father died. Police personnel had Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 9 CRA-2314-2024 recorded his statement and that of his father at Nehru Hospital. Sunita had sustained injury on her hand whereas Sanjay had sustained injury on his finger.
22. In cross-examination, this witness admits that when he had reached the place of the incidence, then his father was lying on the floor. In para 14, this witness admitted that Rammilan is his cousin brother. He had performed marriage of his daughter, 2-3 days prior to the incident and further stated that Rammilan had not invited him to the marriage of his daughter but had only called his father. He further stated that he and his father they are residing separately for last 15-20 years. He also admitted that he and his father received different invitations for social functions.
23. In para 16, this witness admits that accused Amar and Ajit are brother- in-law of Rammilan (Saale). They are also resident of village Jaitpur. In para 16, a suggestion was given to this witness that his brother Sanjay was involved in eve teasing at the venue of the marriage of Rammilan's daughter when he was scolded and was forced to leave the place but admitted in his cross-examination that when he had reached the place at about 11:00 pm, then he was informed that Ajay, who is another brother-in-law of Rammilan, had beaten Sanjay. He admitted that after Vidai of daughter of Rammilan, an allegation was made in regard to theft of two mattresses for which Panchayat was convened, then on his own stated that they were falsely implicated. He admits that though all the villagers of Jaitpur are known to him but further stated that since he was beaten as soon as he reached the place of the incidence, he could not identify as to who were the persons available at the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 10 CRA-2314-2024 spot.
24. In cross-examination, he stated that his father had sustained injuries at several places. This witness further stated that since he was beaten he could not see as to where injuries were sustained by Rajesh and Ambar. Further states that police had arrived after half an hour when he reached the place of the incidence.
25. In para 28, this witness admits that a criminal case is pending against him, Sanjay and Ashok.
26. In para 30, this witness admits that except for injury on over right eye he had not sustained any injury on any other part of the body including the head.
27. Ku. Sunita Sahu (PW-2) after stating that Amar Kumar and Rammilan are known to her, stated that Janaklal was her father, Sanjay is her brother, accused had entered in her house and beaten Janaklal and when she and her younger brother came forward to save their father, then they too were beaten. She stated that Amar was armed with an iron pipe whereas Rammilan was having a sabbal and Ajit was armed with a farsa. She further stated that when alarms were raised then her stepp brother Budhai had also reached the spot where Rammilan had hit Budhai with a sabbal on his right eye. She admits that when accused had left after beating, then Budhai had come on the spot. She admits that her father died while taking treatment on 12th. Spot map (Ex.P-4) was prepared as per her instructions and Dehati Nalishi was recorded by her is Ex.P-5.
28. In para 3, she states that Baraat for Rammmilan's daughter had come in Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 11 CRA-2314-2024 the colony where Ajit and Ajay had accused Sanjay of eve teasing the girls who had come in Baraat. She admits that on this Ajit and Ajay had beaten her brother Sanjay. On that date her father Janaklal had not said anything and was quite. After she was declared hostile, she admits that there was an allegation, as contained in Ex.P-3, in regard to theft of mattresses. In Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-5), it is mentioned that accused were armed with lathi, danda and tangi. There is no mention of sabbal, iron rod and farsa.
29. In para 9, this witness admits that she cannot state as to which of the colony mates/neighbourers had come to intervene cannot be stated by her.
30. In para 13, she states that Rammilan has no social interaction with Budhai on account of Budhai's daughter marrying in another caste.
31. In para 15, this witness admits that at the time of baraat of Rammilan's daughter her brother Sanjay had gone to the stage uninvited and a dispute had occurred on account of eve teasing made by Sanjay. Sanjay was asked to leave the place of Baraat. She also states that Rammilan's family members had accused her brother Sanjay of stealing of mattresses, which was settled by the persons who were present at the place of the incident. She admits that the said dispute of eve teasing and mattresses being stolen took place in the intervening night of 22.04.2015 and 23.04.2015.
32. In para 17, a suggestion was given that her father Janaklal Sahu had beaten Ajit with a balua and had caused injuries on his head. She admits that she had seen injured Ajit at hospital.
33. In para 18, this witness admits that it is correct to say that even accused were treated at Nehru Hospital Jayant.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 12 CRA-2314-2024
34. In para 19, this witness admits that at the time of the dispute she was at her home, thereafter, she admits that injuries were sustained by her father and brother when accused had tried to save themselves.
35. In para 23, this witness states that in her case diary statements, Ex.P-3 and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-5) she had not stated that accused had beaten with a tangi. She cannot state as to what is the difference between tangi and farsa. She further admits that at the time of the incident, she was inside her home. She further states that she cannot give names of the neighbourers who had reached the place of the incidence. She cannot state as to who had given intimation to police in regard to the incidence.
36. Sunita Devi (PW-3) is Bhabhi of complainant Sunita Sahu, Sanjay Sahu is her Devar, d eceased Janaklal Sahu is her Father-in-Law whereas Budhairam is Jeth. This witness has stated that at the time of the incidence, neither it was dark nor lighted, several persons from neighbourhood had collected but she cannot give names of any of the neightbourers. Thereafter, she admits that incident took place near a chauraha. She admitted that there was no old enmity with the family of the Rammilan.
37. In para 28, she admits that Rammilan had not invited her family for the marriage function. Contrary to PW-2, author of Dehati Nalishi, this witness states that at the time of the incident her husband Ramashok and devar, Sanjay, were present. She stated that Ajit was armed with a Gadasa whereas author of Dehati Nalishi has not mentioned that any of the accused were armed with a Gadasa.
38. Sanjay Kumar Sahu (PW-4) admits that on the date of the marriage Ajit Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 13 CRA-2314-2024 had beaten him but he had not made any report in regard to that beating. He admits that on 23.04.2015, wife of Rammilan had alleged in regard to theft of mattresses but no report was lodged that she had abused them. She continued to abuse them on 24.04.2015 also but they had not lodged any report. On 25.04.2015 also she abused them but they had not lodged any report. This witness admits that wife of Rammilan had alleged that Sanjay had committed theft of the mattresses.
39. In para 14, Sanjay stated that at the time of the marriage in the family of Rammilan he had touched hand of one of the girls but he had not indulged in any eve teasing. This evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, who have admitted that there was no invitation to their family from the side of the Rammilan and, thus, it is evident that Sanjay was an intruder and was not an invited guest.
40. In para 16, this witness admits that in his case diary statements (Ex.D-
3), he had not mentioned that his father had sustained any injury in his stomach.
41. In para 20, this witness admits that Janaklal was operated in stomach at Laxmi Medical and Surgical Care Center, Varanasi.
42. In para 21, Sanjay Sahu admits that they had no intimation about rupture of intestine and during treatment at Laxmi Hospital doctors had informed him about rupture of intestine and consequent infection. He admits that his house is situated on a chauraha and in Ex.P-3, if it is not mentioned that Janaklal was hit with a pipe on his stomach then he cannot give any reason for the same.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 14 CRA-2314-2024
43. This witness states in para 26 that Ajit was admitted in Nehru Hospital for treatment.
44. In para 27, this witness admits that a case is pending against them for beating Ajit.
45. In para 38, it is stated that none of the complainant had beaten Amar and he had sustained injuries while intervening in the fight.
46. Veermati (PW-5) is wife of deceased Janaklal. She admits that in south of her house is situated house of accused and Ajit, on the north is the Jayant Market, her neighbourers are Ramdayal, Jaitlal Sahu, Tulsi Sahu, Ramji Sahu, Rampyare Sahu and Ramnath Sahu. But none of these independent witnesses have been examined.
47. In para 9, this witness admits that prior to the incident in which her husband got injured, a dispute had occurred amongst Rammilan and his wife and Janaklal and her children on account of allegation of theft of mattresses. This witness admits that her stepson Budhi has no social connect with Rammilan. She denied her statements, Ex.D-4, given before the Juvenile Court. However, these statements are available as Ex.D-4. In Ex.D-4, this witness has admitted that Sanjay had gone to the house of Rammilan to witness his daughter's marriage without any invitation. A dispute had arisen which was settled by the persons who were present.
48. In para 6, this witness stated that Rammilan at the time of the incident was returning with his wife from the side of the market and while passing in front of her house Janaklal and her sons had entered into an altercation with Rammilan when Budhairam had arrived.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 15 CRA-2314-2024
49. In para 8, she states that when the incident took place she was inside her home and being inside her home she could not see as to who had beaten whom with which weapon. She has further admitted that Amar and Ajit had come to the place of the incidence to intervene and during such transactions Ajit had sustained injuries.
50. In para 9, this witness admits that since she was inside her home at the time of the dispute she cannot say as to which of the accused were armed with which of the weapons.
51. In para 28, PW-5, has admitted that she could not see as to who had beaten her husband, then on her own stated that Ajit, Amar and Rammilan had beaten but she admitted that she could not see as to who had beaten her husband.
52. Umesh Kumar Shah (PW-6) states that Janaklal Sahu was his grandfather. At the time of the incident, he was returning from Mahua market, Jayant. He admits that on 22.04.2015, marriage of Rammilan's daughter took place when some dispute had occurred between Sanjay, Ajit and Ajay.
53. In para 6, this witness stated that he has no intimation as to the case filed by Rammilan, Ajit and Amar against Budhai, Ramashok and Sanjay Shah.
54. In para 10, this witness admits that while coming from the side of Jayant market, house of the Janaklal is the first occupied building, incident took place on road, when the dispute started at that time he was at Mahua Market, Jayant. When he returned from market he saw his grandfather lying Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 16 CRA-2314-2024 on the road in a blood pool. This witness admits that prior to this incident of 25.04, dispute between complainant and accused was going on in regard to theft of mattresses. He further states that Ramashok had not sustained any injuries and he was perfectly alright.
55. Dr. Sandeep Lal (PW-7) stated that he had prepared injury report of Janaklal Shah at Nehru Shatabdi Hospital Jayant, District Singrauli. He had given intimation to police vide Ex.P-6. Ex.P-8 in which it is mentioned that Janaklal Shah had sustained two incised wounds one of 6/7" and another 3", there was swelling over left eye.
56. Dr. Sandeep Lal (PW-7) in Ex.P-8 had termed injury no.1 and 2 to be grievous in nature whereas injury no.3 to be simple in nature. Vide Ex.P-7, he had examined Budhairam and found two injuries, both were simple in nature. Ex.P-6 is his intimation, in which it is mentioned that there is alleged history of assault, patient can give statements.
57. Dr. Sandeep Lal (PW-7), in para 3, states that if Janaklal would have been given proper medical care and treatment then his life could have been saved. He states that as per the discharge ticket, there was no injury on his stomach part.
58. In para 5, this witness states that Ajit Kumar had sustained injury over his left neck and ear measuring 8" long and 4" broad. This injury was caused with a sharp weapon and was homicidal in nature. Doctor has proved report Ex.D-6 in regard to injuries of Ajit.
59. In para 10, Dr. Lal has stated that if somebody is suffering from high B.P. Sugar, hypertension for long duration and takes pain killers in high Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 17 CRA-2314-2024 doses, then there can be blisters in the stomach. He further states that such high doses can result in perforation in intestine.
60. This doctor in cross-examination admits that he had treated Ajit Sahu, Rammilan and Amar Sahu. Exhibits D-6, D-8, D-9, D-10, D-11, D-12, D-13 and D-14 are documents pertaining to their treatment. According to Ex.D-18, doctor had found injuries on head and left hand of Amar Sahu. Similarly, vide Ex.D-6, he had found injuries on the head of Ajit as well as on both the hands. As per Ex.D-10, Rammilan had sustained injuries on his head.
61. Brijesh Kumar (PW-8) stated that when fight was going on at that time he was not present, when he had reached the spot then he had found that Ajit was injured, he had a injury sustained on his head, he was being taken to hospital.
62. Dr. Vimla Khes (PW-10) stated that Ku. Sunita Sahu was brought to her for treatment, she had sustained one bluish red contusion on left thigh measuring 4cm and 1cm. She was complaining of pain on the left forearm for which X-ray was advised. Injury No.1 was caused by hard and blunt object which was simple in nature and was caused within two days of examination. In cross-examination, this witness stated that dimensions of the injury are not given.
63. Rajkishore Singh Patel (PW-10), Patwari, stated that on 14.062015, he had gone to the spot and prepared Najari-Naksha (Ex.P-1), he was not present at the time of the incident.
64. Shyamlal Panika (PW-12), is a hearsay witness, he stated that villagers had informed him about altercation, he has no personal information about the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 18 CRA-2314-2024 incident, this witness was declared hostile but nothing substantial was extracted from leading questions put to him.
65. Anjani Kumar Tiwari (PW-13) stated that when he had gone to Jayant Police Station, police personnel had obtained signatures on blank paper, he has no other intimation, however he admitted his signatures on Ex.P-15, seizure memo from A to A part.
66. PW-14 Virendra Singh Parihar, stated that he was working as a Chowki Incharge, Police Chowki, Jayant. He had recorded Dehati Nalishi and then recorded statements of Sunita Sahu D/o Janaklal Sahu, Sanjay Sahu and Budhai Sahu. As per their narration, he had prepared spot map Ex.P-4 had prepared examination form and had referred Sunita Sahu to District Hospital, Waidhan. He had prepared Nuksani Panchnama of damaged Bolero No.MP 66 T 1306 on 30.04.2015, he had recorded memorandum of Rammilan. He had seized various articles of offence. He had sent different articles to forensic science laboratory vide Ex.P-23 dated 02.10.2015. As per FSL report, there was human blood was found on 'E', 'F' and 'G'. 'E' is the Gandasa produced by Ajit Sahu. 'F' & 'G' are towels but blood group could not be ascertain as the marks were disintegrated.
67. In cross-examination this witness PW-14 admits that on 22.04.2015, no information was received at police chowki in regard to altercation which had taken place between Sanjay and Ajit. He admits that in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.p-
5), there is no allegation of causing any marpeet with sabbal, pipe, and balua or farsa. At that time, he was informed that accused had caused marpeet with lathi, danda and tangi. He further admits that in Ex.P-5, it is mentioned that Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 19 CRA-2314-2024 injured Janaklal had sustained injuries on his head, forehead and legs, there is no mention of any injury to his stomach.
68. In para 19, it is stated that in her statements Ex.P-3, Sunita had not informed him that Janaklal had sustained any injuries in his stomach and that accused had caused any damage to their Bolero vehicle. Thereafter it is stated that when this witness had reached hospital, Janaklal was in a dying stage but he had not recorded this fact that Janaklal was in a dying stage and was not capable of recording his statements, then on his own stated that by the time he reached hospital at Jayant, patient was referred to Banaras.
69. In para 21, this witness admits that article 'E' which is an iron gadasa does not contain his signatures nor the signatures of the witnesses. He admits that similarly article 'C' does not contain signatures of the person from whom it was seized nor the signatures of the seizure witnesses. Similarly in article 'D', iron pipe, there is a slip attached but it does not contain either his signatures or that of the person from whom it was recovered nor that of the witnesses.
70. In para 24, this witness admits that while preparing loss panchnama in regard to Bolero, he had not seen the registration papers of Bolero.
71. In para 25, this witness admits that when he had arrested the accused persons they had sustained injuries on their body.
72. In para 27, it is mentioned that Budhi while giving his police statements Ex.D-1 had not informed that when he had reached the place of the incident his father was lying on floor in an injured condition.
73. Similarly, in para 28, it is admitted that Ku. Sunita Sahu (PW-2) while Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 20 CRA-2314-2024 giving statements (Ex.P-3) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-5) had not informed that Ajit and Amar had beaten her with an iron pipe . She had also not informed that Rammilan had hit Budhi with a sabbal on a right eye. He further states that Ku. Sunita Sahu (PW-2) had not informed him that her father was beaten in stomach.
74. In para 29, he admits that Sunita Devi (PW-3) W/o Ramashok while giving her case diary statements (Ex.D-2) had not informed him that Janaklal was hit by Ajit with a gadasa, Amar with an iron pipe and Rammilan with a sabbal. She had also not stated that Budhiram was hit with an iron pipe by Rammilan.
75. In para 30, this witness admits that PW-4 Sanjay Sahu had not informed police while giving his statements Ex.D-3 that Ajit was armed with a farsa, Amar Singh with an iron pipe and Rammilan with a sabbal and they had caused marpeet. He further states that Sanjay Sahu never informed him that Janaklal was hit in his stomach with a pipe.
76. In cross-examination, this witness admits that he had reached the place of the incidence at 8:00 am on the next day. He admits that while recording statements of the witnesses, he has not put time in any of the statements. This witness admits that therefore he cannot say that which statement was taken prior to and which statements were taken subsequently. He admits that he had recorded statements of Sunita w/o Ramashok on 26.04 He admits that on FIR acknowledgment date is mentioned as 27.06. i.e. Ex.D-21, then he mentioned that due to error 06 is mentioned, whereas FIR was sent on 27.04.2022. He admits that inward outward register in regard to FIR is not Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 21 CRA-2314-2024 attached.
77. In para 35, this witness admits that while arresting the accused he had not enclosed medical documentation. Though, he admits that he had investigated even the cross case. He admits that towels, which were sent for FSL investigation, were not matched with the blood group of the deceased.
78. Lalji Sahu (PW-15) stated that incident did not took place in front of him, he visited Banaras during treatment. He is son-in-law of Janaklal Sahu.
79. Suresh Kumar Shah (PW-16) stated that memorandum of Rammilan, Ex.P-16, that of Amar, Ex.P-17, were recorded in front of him, police had seized sabbal and gadasa from the fields of Janaklal. They were taken out by Sunita D/o of Janaklal at the instance of police personnel, Ex.P-18 and Ex.P- 19 contains his signatures.
80. Rammilan Sahu, Amar Kumar Sahu, and Ajit Kumar Sahu were arrested in front of him. Their arrest memo is Ex.P-20 and P-21. This witness was declared hostile. Leading questions were put to him. In cross- examination, this witness admitted that Rammilan Sahu, Amar Kumar Sahu and Ajit Kumar Sahu were arrested from Nehru Hospital. At the time of arrest, injuries were available on their body. On his own, he stated that their wounds were bandaged. Accused had not given any information to the police in front of him. Police had only obtained signatures on those documents. He further stated that sabbal and pipe were recovered by the police from the house of Janaklal which were given by the daughter and wife of Janaklal. He further stated that police had not seized those articles in front of this witness.
81. Sitasharan Shah (PW-17) stated that a dispute had occurred between Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 22 CRA-2314-2024 Janaklal Sahu and his family members. Spot map, Ex.P-4, was prepared which contains his signatures. He was not present at time of the incident. He had not seen the registration papers of the Bolero vehicle when Nuksani Panchnama was prepared.
82. PW-18 Shankhlal Saket stated that accused Rammilan Sahu is known to him so also deceased Janaklal Sahu. Police had visited his home and obtained his signatures on certain papers, he has no information about the incidence. He admitted his signatures on memorandum Ex.P-16 and P-17 so also seizure memos Ex.P-18 and P-19 and arrest memo Ex.P-20 and P-21 but when he was declared hostile, he did not support the prosecution case. He stated that police had not read over any document and had obtained his signatures at his residence. In cross-examination, he admits that he is not literate but can only make a signature. He stated that he had put his signatures on those documents under fear of the police personnel.
83. Dr. Santosh Gupta (PW-19) conducted postmortem and found following injuries -:
01. पो ट- ट टड वुड गे पंग एंड ह िलंग वुड 9 से.मी. गुणा 1.5 से.मी., हे ड के टॉप पर ब कुल बीच बीच नाक क जड़ से शु , खोलने पर फै चर पैराइटल एवं टे पोरल बोन (दोन तरफ के) तथा फै चर ऑफ ऑ सी पटल बोन पाया गया।
02. िसलाई के प ात ् का घाव तथा ह िलंग कार 04 से.मी. का िसर के उपर, जो इं जर नं. 01 से जुडा हुआ था। दा हने आंख के भ ह पर 09 से.मी. उपर से शु था।Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 23 CRA-2314-2024
03. िसलाई के प ात ् का एवं भरता हुआ घाव 06 से.मी.
बांये साइड म पैराइटल साइड तथा िमडलाइन के 06 से.मी. बाहर तथा बांये आंख के भ ह के 11 से.मी. उपर था।
04. िसला हुआ घाव (10 टचेज मौजूद) पेट पर नािभ के उपर से शु तथा ज फ टनम के 07 से.मी. नीचे तक था।
05. भरता हुआ घाव 03 से.मी. गुण ं ा 02 से.मी. दा हने को हनी के प भाग म था।
06. कोलो टमी घाव (स जकल) 06 से.मी. इन डायमीटर पेट के दा हने साइड म एवं दा हने िन पल के 21 से.मी. नीचे एवं नािभ के 03 से. मी. बाहर क तरफ मौजूद था।
84. Small intestine was perforated, large intestine was stitched, which was in the ascending: Deceased died because of septicemia and shock due to head injury and intestinal perforation.
85. In cross-examination, this doctor admitted that initial treatment papers were not enclosed, he cannot state as to where preliminary treatment was given. He admits that in ExP-27, it is not mentioned as to what was the duration of the injuries.
86. In para 11, this witness stated that the wound which was present in the body of the deceased, such patients are not given food for 7-10 days till the wound is healed and if food is given without medical advise, then that can become a cause of death.
87. Indrabhan Singh (PW-20), ASI, admitted that on the basis of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-5), FIR (Ex.P-34) was recorded. In Dehati Nalishi there is no Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 24 CRA-2314-2024 mention of marpeet being caused with a sabbal, pipe, balua o r farsa and therefore, these facts are not mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P-34).
88. PW-21 Dr. U.K. Singh had treated injured at Jayant Hospital along with Dr. Sandeep Lal. In para 3, stated that blood sugar of Janaklal was 236 for which he was referred to physician Dr. S. Vishwas. This witness admits that when Janak gained consciousness, he had not asked about the incident from him. There was a depressed wound on the head as was found in the CT Scan report and that can be caused due to fall on a round stone or a round piece of wood. Except for injuries found on the head no other injury was found on the body of the deceased.
89. Dr. Sandeep Kumar Rai (PW-22), Neurosurgeon, admits that gastric perforation can be caused if high potency painkiller is given but it will not cause intestinal perforation.
90. R.P. Singh (PW-23), Inspector, stated that on 27.04.2015 Sub Inspector Virendra Singh Parihar who was working under this witness had requested Chief Medical Officer, Nehru Chikitsalaya, Jayant to provide injury report and bed head ticket which is Ex.P-37 and since Shri Virendra Singh Parihar worked under him he recognizes his signatures. Thereafter, it is stated that injury report received for Janak Sahu is Ex.P-38 and Pathology report is Ex.P39. These documents were provided to the Court vide Ex.P-41. This witness admits that Ex.P-40 does not contain his signatures. He admits that Ex.P-41 was never received by him and Ex.P-41 is not his document. He admits that he cannot say as to which of the doctors had prepared Ex.P-38 is not known to him but on his own stated that it was prepared by radiologist.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 25 CRA-2314-2024 This witness admitted that he had not examined said radiologist nor recorded his statements.
91. Dr. Ritu Singh (PW-24), Medical Officer District Officer, Waidhan. She had examined Sanjay Shah S/o Janak Lal Shah and had found that there was one injury on throat measuring 2 x 0.1 cm in the form of a scratch which was of brown colour caused within 24 hours of her examination. There was another abrasion on the ring finger of the left hand measuring 2 x 0.3 cm. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. In cross-examination admitted that injuries could have been caused on account of fall. She could not recollect as to whether any details as to how injuries were contacted were given or not.
92. Defence has produced as many as 20 documents and also the testimony of prosecution witnesses, like, Veermati Sahu, who had given her deposition before the Juvenile Court, as contained in Ex.D-4. Prosecution also examined defence witness Kishori Mishra, Anganwadi Karyakarta substantiating the submission that Janaklal had brought a farsa (balua) from inside of his house and had hit Ajit on his head. She has also corroborated the fact that Rammilan was returning from market. However, she admitted that due to injury Janaklal died subsequently.
93. Rammilan Sahu (DW-2) admitted that Janaklal was his father's elder brother and Budhai, Ramashok and Sanjay are sons of Janaklal. He corroborated the evidence that in the year 2015 at the time of marriage of his daughter, when Jaimaal was taking place Sanjay had teased some girls on which dispute had arisen and then has stated that Janaklal had Ajit on his Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 26 CRA-2314-2024 head with a balua which was reported by his brother-in-law Amar vide Ex.P-
21.94. Thus, from the evidence of the witnesses specially (PW-5), who has admitted that Ajit was also treated at Nehru Hospital along with them. He also admitted that in the same Court, the case was pending against the complainant party in regard to marpeet with Ajit. He also admitted that nowhere it is mentioned in their statements that any of the accused had hit their father on stomach. Sanjay (PW-4) has admitted that he was involved in eve teasing though trying to give different dimension but it is in admitted fact that he was not invited to the marriage and thus he was a trespasser. His further admission that he had not lodged any complaint in regard to any of the allegations of marpeet on 22.04.2015 that is at the time of the marriage or of accusation made by wife of Rammilan in regard to theft of mattresses or ancillary abuses which were hurled so also the abuses which were hurled on 24.04.2015 Prosecution witnesses have also admitted that in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-5) and police statements (Ex.P-3) given by Ku. Sunita Sahu (PW-2) , it is mentioned that marpeet was caused with lathi, danda and tangi but there is no mention of iron pipe, sabbal etc.. Ku. Sunita Sahu (PW-2) in para 17 has categorically stated that she cannot say as to whether Ajit had sustained injury or not but after denying a suggestion that Janaklal Sahu had hit Ajit on his head with a balua, used to slaughter goats, admits that Ajit too had sustained injuries and she had seen his injuries in the hospital.
95. When these facts are taken into consideration, then as per the postmortem report of Dr. Santosh Gupta since death had occurred on Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 27 CRA-2314-2024 13.05.2015 whereas incident is of 25.04.2015 and cause of death are head injury and the septicemia on account of perforation in the stomach and that injury is attributed to Rammilan Sahu, it is an admitted fact that the incident took place at the spur of the moment, Ajit is also one of the injured persons from the accused party, conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of IPC with the aid of Section 34 is not made out, even conviction under Sections 452, 427, 294 and 506 Part-II is not made out, inasmuch as prosecution witnesses admitted that the incident took place at the chauraha and not inside the house of the complainant party. In a free fight since individual role is to be seen and injury attributed to the body of Janaklal is set to be caused by Rammilan, conviction of Amar Kumar Sahu with the aid of Section 34 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby set aside. However, conviction of Amar Kumar Sahu under Section 323/34 on 3 counts is maintained but it is directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
96. As far as, Rammilan is concerned, since it has come on record that firstly Janak had hit Ajit with a gandasa and, then, in self-defence Rammilan had hit Janak and that too a single injury was caused on head, case will fall under 4th Exception to Section 300 IPC and, therefore, conviction of Rammilan Sahu deserves to be and is hereby altered from one under Section 302/34 of IPC to 304 Part-II of IPC. Admittedly, he had not hit anybody else, therefore, his conviction under Sections 323/34 (3 counts), 452, 427, 294, 506 Part-II is not made out and is set aside.
97. Accordingly, it is held that Rammilan Sahu's conviction stands Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 28 CRA-2314-2024 modified to one under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, he shall undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with default stipulation of 1 year Additional Rigorous Imprisonment.
98. As far as, Amar Kumar Sahu is concerned, his conviction only under Section 323/34 (3 counts) of IPC is maintained and conviction under other Sections is set aside.
99. In above terms, Criminal Appeal No.2314/2024 is disposed of.
100. As far as, appeal filed by Ajit Kumar Sahu i.e. Criminal Appeal No.3539/2024 is concerned, Dr. Sandeep Lal (PW-7) had examined Ajit Kumar and had found 8" long and 4" wide injury behind his left ear caused by sharp object and, his report is Ex.D-6.
101. On perusal of Ex.D-6, it is evident that its a injury report of Ajit Kumar Sahu S/o Ramlal Sahu, who was examined on 25.04.2015 at 9:15 pm but Dr. Sandeep Lal had termed all the injuries to be simple at the time of the examination. He had requested for further opinion from surgeon/orthopaedician and radiologist concerned but no such opinion of radiologist/surgeon is available on record in regard to Ajit.
102. Thus, when this fact is taken into consideration, then there is no further examination by any doctor or medical documents to show that the injuries which were contacted by Ajit were grievous in nature, conviction of the accused therein under Section 323 cannot be faulted with.
103. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.3539 of 2024 filed by Ajit Kumar Sahu is disposed of, in above terms.
104. In the result, both these criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 21-11-2025 17:10:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58074 29 CRA-2314-2024 No.2314/2024 and Criminal Appeal No.3539 of 2024 are allowed in part to the extent indicated above and disposed of. The case property be disposed off in terms of the judgment of the trial Court. Record of the trial Court be sent back. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
MTK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 21-11-2025
17:10:07