Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohar Singh Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
DB :- HON'BLE JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &
HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRDESH, JJ
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10482 OF 2023
MOHAR SINGH JATAV
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Jain and Ms. Nikita Jain- learned Counsel for appellant.
Shri Vijay Sundaram- learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per Justice Hirdesh:-
Today, case is listed on I.A. No.8938 of 2024, second application under Section 389(1) of CrPC for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail, moved on behalf of appellant- Mohar Singh. First application (I.A.No.1327/2024) is rejected vide order dated 13.03.2024.
With the content of both the parties, matter is heard finally on merits Accordingly, IA No. 8938 of 2024 stands closed. (2) The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(1) of CrPC is filed by appellant- Mohar Singh assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12-03-2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Datia in Sessions Trial No.86 of 2017, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. (3) The prosecution case, in short, is that complainant Vimla, W/o Late Balram Jatav submitted a report at Trauma Centre, District Hospital, Datia on 29 th of April, 2017 around 01:20 in the night, stating therein that her brother-in-law (nephew of her father-in-law Mannu), Mohar Singh (appellant) was living in the house for the 2 past two years. On 28th of April, 2017 around 08:45 PM, appellant Mohar Singh came back from Bhander and started fighting with her. Her father-in-law Mannu came to rescue and tried to settle the fight. Appellant took a wooden stick (danda) and inflicted on his head, as a result of which, Mannu sustained grievious injury. On hearing commotion, Kailash and Suresh who live nearby, came on spot for rescue.
Her son, namely, Ram Sahay and Kailash took her father-in-law Mannu to District Hospital, Datia. During treatment, Mannu died. (4) On the basis of report submitted by complainant Vimla, a dehati nalishi was recorded vide Crime No.01 of 2017 and sent to PS Unao for registration of FIR. On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, FIR at Crime No.63 of 2017 (Ex.P15) for offence under Section 302 of IPC was registered against appellant. Matter was investigated. (5) During investigation, inquest panchnama and spot map were prepared, postmortem of deceased Mannu was conducted, statements of witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC were recorded and accused was arrested. Relevant seizure was made.
(6) After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge-sheet was filed before the Magisterial Court from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court.
(7) Charges were framed and read over to accused. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC.
(8) Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 9 witnesses whereas appellant, in order to lead his evidence, did not examine a single witness in his defence.
(9) After conclusion of trial, the Trial Court on the basis of prosecution evidence as well as exhibited material/documents available on record, found the appellant guilty and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him with fine for commission of offence under Section 302, as stated in Para 2 of this judgment. (10) Challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, it is contended on behalf of appellant that three witnesses PW-4 Suresh Dangi, PW-5 3 Vimla Jatav and PW-6 Ram Sahay Jatav are related to deceased Mannu, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. The deceased died due to single lathi blow and there was no intention of accused to commit murder of deceased leading to death of deceased. There is no premeditation or pre-plan or malice on the part of appellant. There is no previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased. The alleged incident took place at the spur of moment. Therefore, offence against appellant is not proved under Section 302 of IPC. At the most, offence would fall under Section 304 either Part I or Part II of IPC. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court deserves to be set aside by allowing the instant appeal. (11) On the other hand, learned Counsel for State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that accused inflicted on the head of deceased with full might or main that the deceased suffered a fracture of parietal bone of skull and intracranial haemorrhage, which were sufficient to cause his death. The testimony of PW-4 Suresh Dangi, PW-5 Smt. Vimla Jatav and PW-6 Ramsahay Jatav cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are relatives of deceased Mannu. Prosecution has produced its evidence and has proven the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant has not produced any evidence in his defence. The findings arrived at by learned Trial Court do not require any interference by this Court. No leniency can be adopted in favour of appellant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
(12) Heard counsel for parties at length and perused the record. (13) The first question arises for consideration is whether the death of deceased was homicidal in nature or not ?
(14) Dr. K.P. Barediya (PW-9), who was posted as Medical Officer at District Hospital, Datia on 29 th of April, 2016 conducted postmortem of deceased Mannu and found following external injuries:-
''Injury No.1- Lacerated wound on left side parietal bone of skull 5X 0.5 bone deep. Fracture of parietal bone of skull seen. Intracranial haemorrhage present.
Injury No.2. Contrusion on left lateral side of lower chest wall 4 just near and parallel to 12 th lower rib 10x2 cm. Abdominal cavity filled with approximately 2 liters of blood and spleen was ruptured.'' Both the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. (15) On internal examination of deceased, Dr. Barediya found following injuries:-
''There was a fracture of parietal bone in the skull. Haemorrhage was seen on occipital region, brain, spinal cord and meninges. Diaphragm, ribs and soft tissues were pale larynx and trachea were pale. Left and right lungs were pale. Pericardium was pale. Left chamber of heart was empty and right chamber was filled with blood. Aorta and inferior vena-cava were pale. Mouth and oesophagus were pale, semi-digested food was present in the stomach. Digested food and gases were present in the small intestine. Faecal matter and gases were present in the large intestine. Liver, Kidneys were pale, spleen was pale and ruptured. Urinary bladder was empty. Genital organs were healthy.'' As per opinion of Dr. Barediya, the cause of death of deceased was due to shock and excessive haemorrhage, caused by hard and blunt object. Duration of death of deceased was within 6 to 24 hours before postmortem examination. (16) Since the evidence given by Dr. Barediya remained unchallenged in his cross-examination, therefore, from the medical evidence, it is clear that the cause of death of deceased was homicidal in nature.
(17) The next question arises for determination of appeal is whether appellant had inflicted blow of wooden stick (danda) on the head of deceased or not ? (18) Smt. Vimala Dangi (PW-5) in Paras 1 and 2 of her examination-in-chief deposed that accused Mohar Singh, who is nephew of her father-in-law (deceased) was living with deceased for his help. On the date of incident around 08:45 pm, accused came and started fighting with her. When her father-in-law Mannu came to rescue, accused inflicted lathi blow on his head. This witness further deposed that on hearing hue and cry, Kailash and her son Ramsahay came on spot. Thereafter, her father-in-law Mannu was taken to District Hospital, Datia and during treatment, he died.
(19) Suresh Dangi (PW-4), who reached the spot, after hearing commotion, in Para 1 of his examination-in-chief deposed that on the date of incident, he was at the distance of 10 steps from the place of incident, i.e. backyard. Accused Mohan 5 Singh was fighting with Smt. Vimla. When deceased Mannu came to settle the fight, accused Mohar Singh inflicted a blow of wooden stick (lathi) on the head of deceased as a result of which, blood started oozing.
(20) PW-6, Ramsahay Jatav (son-in-law of deceased) in Para 1 of his examination-in-chief deposed that on the date of incident around 08:45 in the night, accused Mohar Singh came from Bhander and started fighting with her mother Vimla. When his grandfather Mannu came to rescue her, accused Mohar Singh inflicted a blow of wooden stick (danda) on his head, due to which, blood started oozing and he fell down on the ground.
(21) The statements of above witnesses remained unchallenged in their cross-
examination. Further, Kailash Jatav (PW-2) and Bhaiyalal Jatav (PW-3), on hearing hue and cry, reached the spot for rescue, also deposed that they found that blood started oozing from the head of deceased because of lathi blow inflicted by accused Mohar Singh. Investigating Officer Rajesh Satankar (PW-7) also recorded statements of witnesses, prepared inquest panchnama vide Ex.P3 On the basis of disclosure statement made by appellant-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a wooden stick (danda) was recovered at the instance of accused. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that the appellant had inflicted injury on the head of deceased by means of wooden stick (danda) resulted into death of deceased.
(22) The next question arises for determination of appeal is whether appellant had inflicted injury on the head of deceased by means of wooden stick with intention of causing death or not ?
(23) The provisions under Section 304 of IPC regarding punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder read as under:-
''Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may 6 extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.'' (24) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635, in detail, has discussed the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to accused as under:-
''10. We have carefully perused the judgments of the trial court and the High Court as also the evidence of witnesses. It is fully established from the evidence on record that the appellant had caused the injury to the deceased Hazoor Singh which proved fatal.
11. The short question which falls for consideration of this court is whether, on consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC should be upheld or the conviction be converted to one under Section 304 Part II IPC? Appropriate sentencing is a very vital function and obligation of the court.
12. There are significant features of the case which are required to be taken into consideration in awarding the appropriate sentence to the accused:
(1) Admittedly, the incident happened at the spur of the moment;
(2) It is clear from the evidence on record that the appellant was not using that path everyday.
(3) The appellant gave a single lathi blow on the head of the deceased which proved fatal;
(4) The other accused did not indulge in overt act therefore, except the appellant, the other co-accused namely Niranjan Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Manjit Singh have been acquitted by the trial court;
(5) The incident took place on 8.1.1997 and the deceased remained hospitalized and ultimately died on 14.1.1997;
(6) The trial court observed that there was no previous enmity between the parties.
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that there was no pre-
7arranged plan or that the incident had taken place in furtherance of the common intention of the accused persons. When all these facts and circumstances are taken into consideration in proper perspective, then it becomes difficult to maintain the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC.
14. This Court had an occasion to deal with cases of similar nature. In Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana (1981) 3 SCC 616, the accused had inflicted a single blow in the heat of moment in a sudden fight with blunt side of Gandhala on the head of the deceased causing his death. According to the opinion of the doctor this particular injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. But, according to this Court, the intention to cause such an injury was likely to cause death had not been made out. This Court altered the conviction of the accused from section 302 IPC to section 304 Part II IPC and the accused was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
15. In Gurmail Singh & Others v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 185, the accused had no enmity with the deceased. The accused gave one blow with the spear on the chest of the deceased causing his death. The injury was an incised wound. The Sessions Judge convicted the accused under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The High Court affirmed the same. This Court, while taking into consideration the age of the accused and other circumstances, converted the conviction from section 302 IPC to one under section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
16. In Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab (1981) 4 SCC 245, the accused, without any prior enmity or pre-meditation, on a short quarrel gave a single blow with a dagger which later proved to be fatal. This Court observed that since there was no pre-meditation, Part 3 of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code could not be attracted because it cannot be said that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury which was ultimately found to have been inflicted. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the conviction of the accused was altered from section 302 to that under section 304 Part II IPC and the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous 8 imprisonment for five years.
17. In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342, the accused in the spur of the moment inflicted a knife blow in the chest of the deceased. The injury proved to be fatal. The doctor opined that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This Court observed that:-
(SCC p. 344 , para 8) ''8. the quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in such a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife and landed a blow in the chest. In these circumstances, it is a permissible inference that the appellant at least could be imputed with a knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. This Court altered the conviction of the appellant from section 302 IPC to section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.
18. In Hem Raj v. State (Delhi Administration) (1990) Supp. SCC 291, the accused inflicted single stab injury landing on the chest of the deceased. The occurrence admittedly had taken place in the spur of the moment and in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. According to the doctor the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This Court observed as under:
"14. The question is whether the appellant could be said to have caused that particular injury with the intention of causing death of the deceased. As the totality of the established facts and circumstances do show that the occurrence had happened most unexpectedly in a sudden quarrel and without pre- meditation during the course of which the appellant caused a solitary injury, he could not be imputed with the intention to cause death of the deceased or with the intention to cause that particular fatal injury; but he could be imputed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. Because in the absence of any positive proof that the appellant caused the death of the deceased with the intention of causing death or intentionally inflicted that particular injury which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death, neither Clause I nor Clause III of Section 300 IPC will 9 be attracted......"
This Court while setting aside the conviction under section 302 convicted the accused under section 304 Part II and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
19. In Abani K.Debnath & Another v. State of Tripura (2005) 13 SCC 422, this Court, in somewhat similar circumstances, while converting the sentence from section 302 IPC to one under section 304 Part II IPC observed as under: (SCC p. 424, para 5) "5. This leads us to consider as to under what Section of law A-1 Abani K. Debnath is liable to be convicted in a given facts of the case. The prosecution evidence clearly discloses that the dao blow dealt by A-1 is preceded by a mutual quarrel. We have already noted that there was no common intention to kill Ranjit Das. From the nature of injuries it is disclosed that A-1 dealt only one dao blow perhaps in the spur of moment. The incident had taken place on 10.8.1990 and the deceased succumbed to injury on 15.8.1990 after a lapse of 7 days. Taking the prosecution evidence and medical evidence cumulatively we are of the view that the conviction of A-1 also cannot fall under Section 34 IPC but at the most under Section 304 Part II. We accordingly convert the sentence of A-1 Abani K. Debnath under Section 34 IPC to that one under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to suffer R.I. for five years. The fine amount imposed by the trial court and Page 2091 affirmed by the High Court is maintained. It is stated at the Bar that A-1 has undergone about 18 months' imprisonment, if that is so, he will be entitled to get the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C."
20. In another case Pappu v. State of M.P. (2006) 7 SCC 391, this Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-95, paras 13-16) "13.......The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned 10 in it must be found. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'.
14. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever one blow is given, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. It would depend upon the weapon used, the size of it in some cases, force with which the blow was given, part of the body it was given and several such relevant factors.
15. Considering the factual background in the case at hand it will be appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC as has been done by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. Custodial sentence of eight years would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent."
21. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place at the spur of the moment. Only the appellant Gurmukh Singh inflicted a single lathi blow. The other accused have not indulged in any overt act. There was no intention or pre- meditation in the mind of the appellant to inflict such injuries to the deceased as were likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On consideration of the entire evidence including the medical evidence, we are clearly of the view that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained under section 302 IPC, but the appropriate section under 11 which the appellant ought to be convicted is section 304 Part II IPC.
22. Before we part with the case, we would like to clearly observe that we are not laying down that in no case of single blow or injury, the accused cannot be convicted under section 302 IPC. In cases of single injury, the facts and circumstances of each case has to be taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the accused should be appropriately convicted under section 302 IPC or under section 304 Part II IPC.
23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under:
a) Motive or previous enmity;
b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;
c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;
d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;
e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;
f) The age and general health condition of the accused;
g) Whether the injury was caused without pre-meditation in a sudden fight;
h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted;
i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused;
j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock;12
k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;
l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations;
m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment?
These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused.
24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused.
25. When we apply the settled principle of law which has been enumerated in the aforementioned cases, the conviction of the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. In our considered view, the accused appellant ought to have been convicted under section 304 Part II I.P.C. instead of under section 302 I.P.C.'' (25) Looking to the factual scenario as well as the evidence of above material witnesses, it is not in dispute that appellant used to live in the house of deceased for his help. He used to quarrel with Smt. Vimla, who is daughter-in-law of deceased. On the date of alleged incident, accused came to the house of deceased and started fighting with Smt. Vimla. When the deceased came for rescue, all of a sudden, at the spur of moment, accused took a wooden stick and inflicted on the head of deceased due to which, he fell down and blood started oozing. Thereafter, the deceased was brought to District Hospital, Datia and during treatment he died. So, it is clear from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there was no intention of appellant to cause 13 death or causing particular injury, which has proved fatal as per medical evidence. Appellant, at least, could be imputed with a knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which caused death of deceased. There is no premeditation or pre-plan or malice on the part of appellant. Therefore, the appellant is shown to have committed an offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
(26) Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal so far as it relates to present appellant stands allowed in part by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12-03-2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Datia in Sessions Trial No.86 of 2017 and instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of seven years. The fine amount as awarded by learned Trial Court stands maintained. In default of payment of fine, accused shall have to go further imprisonment as awarded by learned Trial Court. On completion of aforesaid period of seven years' jail sentence of the appellant and on verifying the same by the jail authorities concerned, appellant shall be released, if not required in any other case.
(27) A copy of this judgment along-with record be sent to concerned Trial Court for necessary information, so also a copy of this judgment be forwarded to concerned Jail Authority for information and compliance.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MAHE
Digitally signed by MAHENDRA
BARIK
MKB DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
NDRA
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=8c6d4d6122d7ee987e457a
3bec5922cacbc050c998981397a35d
9758a2b55074, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
BARIK
serialNumber=AB90F893988F10D71
8DA01F8065D87F25DDC9B6C8C3FF
0E5E280DD36D476F6BA,
cn=MAHENDRA BARIK
Date: 2025.04.30 10:36:22 +05'30'