Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35959
1 CRA-9267-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 30th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9267 of 2024
MANSINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Uma Shankar Jayaswal - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the judgment dated 07.05.2024 passed by learned 2 nd Addl. Sessions Judge Seoni District Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2020, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:
To appellant No. 1 Ramsingh Marskole:-
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
deposited in lieu of fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.3000/- S.I. for two
months.
324/34 IPC For injured Rs.500/- for S.I. for one
Ayodhya Prasad each injured. month.
and Pushpa Bai Total
R.I. 03 years (two Rs.1000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 05-08-2025
18:14:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35959
2 CRA-9267-2024
counts)
To appellant No.2 Amarlal Marskole:-
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
deposited in lieu of fine
302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.3000/- S.I. for two
months.
324/34 IPC For injured Rs.500/- for S.I. for one
Ayodhya Prasad each injured. month.
and Pushpa Bai Total
R.I. 03 years (two Rs.1000/-
counts)
To appellant No.3 Ramobai @ Ramwati bai:-
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
deposited in lieu of fine
302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.3000/- S.I. for two
months.
324/34 IPC For injured Rs.500/- for S.I. for one
Ayodhya Prasad each injured. month.
and Pushpa Bai Total
R.I. 03 years (two Rs.1000/-
counts)
2. It is submitted that, as per the prosecution story, on 13.05.2020 Ayodhya Prasad had reported that on 10.05.2020 at about 03:00 p.m. he was taking animals for grazing towards the Jungle, when he met accused Mansingh Marskole in whose courtyard 'Mahua' was kept for drying, when one of the buffalos got attracted towards that 'Mahua', on the ground of which altercation took place between him and Mansingh, when Mansingh went inside his house and brought a rod, Mansingh started abusing him and then he beat him with a rod which was hit on his face as a result of which he fell down when wife of Mansingh namely Rano Bai @ Ramwati Bai came Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 05-08-2025 18:14:46 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35959 3 CRA-9267-2024 and started beating him with kicks and fists. When his brother Jitendra came for saving him, then Mansingh and Ramo Bai had caused Marpit with kicks and fists. Incident was seen by Janardan Baghel and Laxmi Prasad.
3. Laxmi Prasad dialed 100 and called the vehicle. On 12.05.2020 Jitendra was admitted at Seoni Hospital, where during treatment he died on 18.05.2020.
4. After investigation, Police had recovered iron rod used at the time of the incident, sent the dead body for postmortem and on the basis of the postmortem report, in which it is mentioned that, Esophagus had burst, as a result of which Jitendra died. Charge-sheet was filed. Matter was committed. On committal, case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge and appellants have been convicted as mentioned above.
5. It is submitted that, firstly there are exaggerations in the evidence of the prosecution witness. Initially, presence of Amarlal Marskole was not shown anywhere. Main allegation is against Mansingh Marskole, but with a view to implicate whole family of Mansingh, false, general and omnibus allegations have been made against Amarlal and Ramobai. Even otherwise, looking to the fact that incident took place 10.05.2020 and Jitendra died on 18.05.2020, it is a fit case to convert the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC.
6. Prayer is opposed by Shri Ajay Kuamr Tamrakar, learned Government.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 05-08-2025 18:14:46NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35959 4 CRA-9267-2024
8. Prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. PW-1 Pushpa Choudhary is the wife of deceased Jitendra Choudhary. She has admitted in her cross-examination that injured Ayodhya (PW-3) and her husband Jitendra (deceased) after taking liqueur had an altercation. She also admitted that PW-3 Ayodhya Prasad and Jitendra (deceased) used to suspect Mansingh with 'Jadu-tona' as a result of which she was not having any children of her own. She admitted that on account of suspected black magic an altercation had taken place between Mansingh on one hand and Jitendra and Ayodhya (PW-3) on another hand. She admitted that on 10.05.2020 altercation had taken place amongst Ayodhya and Jitendra, Mansingh and his wife Ramobai. She also admitted that on 12.05.2020 Jitendra was taken to the Hospital. In her case diary statement (Ex.D-1)admitted absence of Amarlal at the place of incident and she has only narrated about the involvement of Maansingh and Ramo Bai at the place of incident.
9. Ulasan Bai (PW-2) is the mother of deceased Jitendra Chaudhary. This witness also admitted that villagers used to consider Mansingh to be practicing Black-magic. She admitted that at the time of altercation, she was not present. Thus, it is evident that Ulasan bai (PW-2) is not an eyewitness.
10. Ayodhya Prasad (PW-3) is the author of FIR. He lodged report (Ex. P-2). He admitted that his brother Jitndra was consuming Alcohol. He also admitted that after being relieved from the Hospital, he came to know that Ramo Bai too had recorded an FIR and report against him at Police Station. Though has denied suggestion that altercation was on account of suspected practice of black-magic.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 05-08-2025 18:14:46NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35959 5 CRA-9267-2024
11. Laxmi Prasad (PW-4) admitted that, when 108 Ambulance was called then only Ayodhya was taken to hospital and not Jitendra. He further admitted in para-6 that on 10.05.2020 it was Jitendra and Ayodhya who had entered into an altercation with Ramo Bai and Man Singh.
12. Sita Ram (PW-5) admitted that Jitendra was not taken to hospital. He admitted his old enmity with Amar Lal saying that Krishna Kumar had eloped with the niece of Amar Lal. He admitted that his old enmity with Amar Lal. He also admitted that he had come to the Court to depose at the behest of Ayodhya. He further admitted that Ayodhya and Jitendra were habitual drinkers and under the influence of Alcohol, they used to fight with his family members. He admitted that, if any fight would have taken between Ayodhya and Jitendra on the next day and that could have caused injuries to Jitendra, then it cannot be said by him.
13. Janardan Baghel (PW-6) admitted in his cross-examination that he had only seen Ayodhya in a blood pool but had not seen as to who had hit him. Laxman Mandare (PW-7) was declared hostile and he has not supported the case of prosecution. However, in cross-examination he admitted that both Ayodhya and Jitendra are habitual alcohol consumers. There was a dispute between wife of Ayodhya, Ahodhya himself with Jitendra and his wife, 02- 03 days prior to the date of incident. He further stated that on the date of the incident, both Ayodhya and Jitendra were under the influence of Alcohol. He denied any seizure being made from him.
14. Devi Singh Choudhary (PW-8) in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which have been wrongly marked as Ex.D-1 admitted Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 05-08-2025 18:14:46 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35959 6 CRA-9267-2024 that he had not seen as to who had beaten Jitendra. He further admitted that Amar Lal was not available at the place of the incident.
15. Dr. Shrikant Meshram (PW-9) opined that he had examined Ayodhya Prasad Choudhary on 13.05.2020. Both the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. His report is Ex.P-17. He had also examined Pushpa Choudhary W/o Jitebndra Choudhary on 28.05.2020, she too had two abrasions, both were simple in nature.
16. Dr. Deepika Kirar (PW-11) stated that on 12.05.2020 she was posted as Medical Officer at District Hospital, Seoni. Jitendra aged about 25 years was admitted to the hospital. Injured informed her that he had sustained injuries in a mar-peet. She performed Pre-MLC. Jitendra was conscious. He was admitted in male surgical ward. There was pain and swelling in his stomach. She had given intimation to the Police Station Kotwali vide Ex.P-
22. She admitted that she has not mentioned as to which injury was caused within what duration.
17. Dr. Mahendra Parte (PW-12) conducted postmortem of deceased Jitendra. He admitted that, there was one abrasion measuring 01 cm. on the left knee and an abrasion of 02 cm on right knee, besides another abrasion on left hand measuring 05 x 05 inches. In internal examination, he found that internal muscle of the stomach contained injury marks. Small intestine was ruptured, size of which was 1 inch x 1/2 inches. Liver etc. were congested.
Cause of death was rupture of small intestine within 36 hours. Postmortem injury was caused with hard and blunt object within 36 hours of death. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that, if a person falls on a stony or Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 05-08-2025 18:14:46 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35959 7 CRA-9267-2024 sharp edged surface then the injuries which were sustained by the deceased could have been caused. He admitted that, he has not mentioned in his post- mortem report that as to how old were the injuries.
18. In the case of Khuman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (2005)9 SCC 714, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"10. Keeping these principles in mind and applying them to the facts of this case we find that the occurrence took place suddenly. There was no premeditation on the part of the appellants and quarrel really arose from a trivial issue. The parties had danced all night and nothing untoward had happened except this small incident. Thereafter they proceeded towards their respective villages. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellants were armed with deadly weapons. Some of them were carrying lathis, as a re usually carried by the tribals in that part of the State, and had not made any special preparation for the assault. Some others had just picked up stones when the deceased was overpower ed, and assaulted him. It is, no doubt, true that they assaulted the deceased in such a manner that the deceased suffered several fractures, but the injury which caused the death of the de ceased was the one suffered by him on account of the rib bone puncturing the liver. We are convinced that this injury was not intended by the appellants, and the injury suffered by the dec eased on his liver was at best accidental. We therefore, hold that Section 300 "thirdly" IPC is not attracted, and it cannot be said that the appellants intended to cause any injury to the liver which perhaps proved fatal. There is no evidence to suggest that Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 05-08-2025 18:14:46 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35959 8 CRA-9267-2024 any of the other injuries suffered by him was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
13. In the circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is set aside and they are convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment each. We are informed that the appellant No.1, Khuman Singh, s/o Nahar Singh, appellant No.2 Khuman Singh, s/o Bair Singh, Appellant No.4 Bhai Singh, s/o Phool Singh and Appellant No.6 Dhanna, s/o Par Singh have remained in custody through out and have served out about 11 years of the sentence, while the remaining appellants were granted bail by the High Court after sometime. In this ap peal this Court granted bail to all the appellants. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the authorities are directed to take them into custody if they have not served out the sentence of five years awarded by this Court, to serve out the remainder of the sentence."
19. Similarly in the case of Chaitu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (2014)11 SCC 218, it is held that, in case of sudden dispute or quarrel false under under Section 304 Part-II IPC. Similar view is taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramani @ Jeeva @ Kullajeeva Vs. Station House Officer, Police Station, Odiyansalai (2011)14 SCC 454.
20. When all these facts and eye-witness account is taken into consideration, then it is evident that learned trial Court has wrongly convicted Amarlal Marskole (appellant No.2) in an arbitrary and illegal manner. There is absolute non-application of mind in recording conviction of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 05-08-2025 18:14:46 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35959 9 CRA-9267-2024 Amarlal Marskole (appellant No.2). As far as appellant No.3 Ramo Bai @ Ramwati Bai is concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations. Allegations of causing injuries to Jitendera are only on Mansing Marskole (appellant No.1). Those injuries were caused by fists and kicks.
21. When this aspect is taken into consideration and also the fact that injured sustained injuries on 10.05.2020 was not admitted to hospital till 12.05.2020 and died on 18.05.2020, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Shakeel Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007)3 SCC 119 , and there being a counter case by Ramo Bai @ Ramwati Bai showing that she too had sustained injuries when Mansing was attacked by Jitendra and Ayodhya suspecting him to be indulging in black-magic, we are of the opinion that conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is thus, set aside, instead appellant No.1 Mansing is convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and is sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 07 years and fine of Rs. 3000/- with default stipulation of two months Simple Imprisonment.
22. As far as appellant No. 2 Amarlal Marskole and appellant No.3 Ramo Bai @ Ramwati Bai are concerned, they are acquitted from the charges under Section 302/34 and 324/34 of IPC, as prosecution has failed to prove the charges against them.
23. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part .
24. If the appellant No. 2 Amarlal Marskole and appellant No. 3 Ramo Bai @ Ramwati Bai are not required in any other case, then they be released forthwith.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 05-08-2025 18:14:46NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35959 10 CRA-9267-2024
25. Case property be disposed off in terms of the directions of the learned trial Court.
26. Record of the trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
AR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 05-08-2025
18:14:46