Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsharan Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2026
1 CRA-1943-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 376 of 2020
KAMMU @ RAMASHRAY PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Shanti Tiwari - Amicus Curiae for the appellants.
Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 477 of 2020
UMESH PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Shanti Tiwari - Amicus Curiae for the appellants.
Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1943 of 2020
RAMSHARAN PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Shanti Tiwari - Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4984 of 2020
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
12:48:34
2 CRA-1943-2020
UMESH PATEL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Dy. Govt. Advocate for appellant/ State.
Ms. Shanti Tiwari - Amicus Curiae for respondents.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33858 of 2020
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
UMESH PATEL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Dy. Govt. Advocate for applicant/ State.
Ms. Shanti Tiwari - Amicus Curiae for respondents.
JUDGMENT
Since all the above matters arise out of the common judgment dated 31.12.2019 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, District Sidhi in Sessions Trial No.04/2017, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 376/2020, 477/2020 and 1943/2020 have been preferred by the appellants/ accused persons under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence whereby they have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 325 (two counts), 323 (two counts), 148 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.200/- under Section 325 IPC (two counts), Rigorous Imprisonment for four months with fine of Rs.100/- under Section 323 IPC (two counts), Rigorous Imprisonment for four months with fine of Rs.200/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 02-04-2026 12:48:343 CRA-1943-2020 under Section 148 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.200/- under Section 452 IPC.
3. M.Cr.C. No.33859/2020 has been filed by the State seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Further, Criminal Appeal No.4984/2020 has been filed by the State under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of sentence.
4. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 30.7.2016 around 9 A.M. a dispute over a land dispute led to an altercation between the accused (Umesh Patel, Ramsharan, Rambilakh, Radhika, MLA Purnendra, Kammoo, Ramkaran and Bhaiyalal) and Budhsen's family in Dera Village. The accused brought cattle and started grazing on Budhsen's pigeon pea field. When Sukhvariya (Budhsen's wife) objected, they abused her and beat her with sticks. When Budhsen intervened, MLA hit him with a tangi. Budhsen's brothers, Satai and Chhotelal, tried to intervene, the accused attacked them with tangis and sticks, intending to kill them. Satai and Chhotelal fell to the ground, sustaining head injuries. Budhsen fled to his house, but the accused followed and continue the assault. Budhsen suffered head and hand injuries. The accused caused life threatening injuries to Budhsen, his wife and brothers. FIR was lodged by Budhsen at Police Station Kamarji bearing Crime No.176/2016. During investigation, medical examination of injured were done in which fracture was found to be sustained by Chhotelal and Satai.
5. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused persons Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 02-04-2026 12:48:34 4 CRA-1943-2020 under Sections 147, 148, 294, 452, 506 Part II and 307/149 of IPC and Criminal Case No.804/2016 was registered. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many as 22 witnesses, namely, Budhsen Bhujva (P.W.1), Smt. Sukhwariya (P.W.2), Chhotelal (P.W.3), Baijnath Yadav (P.W.4), Umesh Bhujva (P.W.5), Satai Prasad (P.W.6), Smt. Rajkali (P.W.7), Nisha (P.W.8), Suresh Kumar Rawat (P.W.9), Ramsakha Gupta (P.W.10), Sandeep Bhujva (P.W.11), Radhrai Saket (P.W.12), Jagnnath Gupta (P.W.13), Jagysen Prasad (P.W.14), Shyamlal Choudhari (P.W.15), Rajkishor (P.W.16), Dr. Pankaj Tiwari (P.W.17), Braspati Yadav (P.W.18), Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19), Santosh Kumar Tiwari (P.W.20), Smt. Prayanka Tiwari (P.W.21) and N.N.Mishra (P.W.22) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/50.
7. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence available on record acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC and convicted them under Sections 148, 325 (on 2 counts), 323 (on 2 counts) and 457 of IPC. Hence, these appeals by accused/ appellants against conviction and sentence and appeals on behalf of State for enhancement of sentence and against acquittal of respondents/ accused persons.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present appellants/ accused persons that they have been implicated falsely in this case. It is revealed from the statement of Medical Experts Dr. Pankaj Tiwari (P.W.17) and Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19) that the injured persons have sustained simple injuries Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 02-04-2026 12:48:34 5 CRA-1943-2020 except Chhotelal who has sustained grievous injury in left hand in form of fracture in ulna bone and Sukhai who has sustained fracture on left parietal region as per the statement of Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19). But Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19) in para 3 of his chief examination has categorically stated that the injury was though grievous in nature but was not dangerous to life. Therefore, this version is binding on the prosecution. Though he has stated in para 1 of his chief examination that the injured has sustained injury on head and his right limb was paralyzed but it has not been stated by this witness that because of that injury, he was paralyzed. There is no connection between the injury and paralysis has been established by this witness. Therefore, it cannot be said that the paralysis was the natural consequence of the injuries sustained by victim Sukhai on the head. Moreover, he in para 2 has stated that in fronto temporal region, there was blood clotting. But even thereafter, he has stated that the injury was not dangerous to life. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offence under section 307 of IPC is made out. It is further submitted that the incidence has been occurred in the sudden anger. There was no mens rea behind the alleged act of the present accused persons. More over there was previous enmity between the parties as the complainant party tried to encroach the Government land which was in possession of the accused persons and due to that dispute they have been implicated falsely. There is no independent support of the witnesses. The witnesses supported the incident, are the injured persons. Therefore, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, they are not reliable witnesses. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 02-04-2026 12:48:34 6 CRA-1943-2020 the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the present appellants/ accused persons.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and supports the appeal against conviction and the appeals filed on behalf of the State for enhancement as well as acquittal of the accused persons from Section 307 of IPC on the ground that there is ample material on record in the light of statement of Dr. Pankaj Tiwari (P.W.17) and Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19) that the injury caused to injured Satai was dangerous to life as the injured has sustained paralysis in right limb and blood was also clotted. Though Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19) has stated that injury was not dangerous to life but having regard to the nature of injury, offence under Section 307 of IPC clearly made out. Moreover, keeping in view the injury sustained by the injured persons, the sentence under Section 325 of IPC is on lower side, because as many as two persons Chhotelal and Satai have sustained grievous injury by hard and blunt object and other injured persons Sukhwariya and Budhsen has sustained simple injuries. Learned counsel for the State prays for enhancement of sentence and also to convict the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and to appropriately sentence them for the said offence.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record meticulously.
11. As per the statement of Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19), Satai has sustained grievous injury on his left parietal region, which is a vital part and that injury was grievous in nature as fracture has been found there. Though he has Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 02-04-2026 12:48:34 7 CRA-1943-2020 stated that there was a paralysis in the right limb and some blood was clotted in the frontotemporal region. Both these injuries of paralysis and clotting of blood was not present there on the part which sustained grievous injuries. Rather, they were found on the other part and no connection between such injury qua paralysis and blood clotting has been established by this witness. Rather he has stated that the injury found to be grievous but not found to be dangerous to live and this statement of this witness in chief examination is binding upon the prosecution. Moreover, he in cross examination has stated that he has only seen the CT Scan report, and prepared bed head ticket (Exhibit P/34). CT scanning was not done in his presence and under his supervision. He also admitted in the cross examination that he cannot say that the injury was how old. Injury on left parietal region in form of fracture per se, coupled with attending facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be caused with intention or knowledge to cause murder of the victim Satai. Thus, this injury doesn't indicate it as a case under Section 307 of IPC.
12. In the case of Jage Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (2015)11 SCC 366 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"12.. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder and
(ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 02-04-2026 12:48:34 8 CRA-1943-2020 Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given etc."
13. In the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kanha @ Omprakash, (2019) 3 SCC 605 Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 16 observed that the lack of forensic evidence to prove grievous or a life threatening injury cannot be a basis to hold that 307 is inapplicable. This proposition of law has been elucidated by a two judge bench of this court in Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 369:-
"18.There is no merit in the contention that the statement of Medical Officer that there is no danger to life unless there is dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone due to strangulation means that the accused did not intend, or have the knowledge, that their act would cause death. The circumstances of this case clearly attract the second part of this Section since the act resulted in injury No.5 which is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm. It must be noted that Section 307 IPC provides for imprisonment for life if Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 02-04-2026 12:48:34 9 CRA-1943-2020 the act causes 'hurt'. It does not require that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. The intention to cause death is clearly attributable to the accused since the victim was strangulated after throwing a telephone wire around his neck and telling him he should die. We also do not find any merit in the contention on behalf of the appellant that there was no intention to cause death because the victim admitted that the accused were not armed with weapons. Very few persons would normally describe the Thums-up bottle and a telephone wire used as weapons. That the victim honestly admitted that the accused did not have any weapons cannot be held against him and in favour of the accused."
14. The crux of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that nature of injury is not important rather the intention of the accused is important which is to be gathered from the weapon used and part of body assaulted & the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.
15. Here in this case testing upon the aforesaid benchmarks it is found that Chhotelal has sustained grievous injury in his left ulna bone which is not a vital part and that injury squarely falls under the offence under Section 325 of IPC not under Section 307 of IPC. Other injured persons including Sukhwariya and Budhsen have sustained injury which was found simple in nature. All the injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object.
16. Considering the aforesaid circumstances as revealed from the evidence, the case does not fall within the four corner of the offence punishable under Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 02-04-2026 12:48:34 10 CRA-1943-2020 Section 307 of IPC.
17. The independent witnesses Rajkali (P.W.7) and Suresh (P.W.9) have turned hostile. However, from their statements it has surfaced that the land bearing Survey No. 292 is Government land, and that the Government had imposed fines upon the complainant party from time to time in relation to the said land, which were duly deposited by them. It has further emerged from the testimony of P.W.2 that the said land is surrounded on three sides by the lands belonging to the accused persons and on the remaining side there exists a public road. Baijnath Yadav (P.W.4) has stated that he did not know the accused persons except Chhotelal, Ramashray, Ramkaran and Rambhilakh by name; nevertheless, these accused persons have been clearly identified by the injured witnesses and other prosecution witnesses who have supported the prosecution case. Although there is no independent corroboration, the injured witnesses Budhsen Bhujwa (P.W.1), Smt. Sukhwariya (P.W.2), Chhotelal Bhujwa (P.W.3), Baijnath Yadav (P.W.4), Umesh Bhujwa (P.W.5), Satai (P.W.6), Nisha Bhujwa (P.W.8), Jagyasen Prasad (P.W.14), and Bhraspati Yadav (P.W.18) have supported the prosecution story.
18. It is true that certain contradictions and variations appear in their statements; however, such discrepancies are of a trivial nature and do not materially affect the core of the prosecution case. It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of injured witnesses carries great evidentiary value, as the injuries sustained by them establish their presence at the place of occurrence. In view of the credible testimony of the injured witnesses and the other supporting witnesses, the prosecution has successfully established Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 02-04-2026 12:48:34 11 CRA-1943-2020 the commission of offences under Sections 325 (two counts), 323 (two counts), 148 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.
19. As far as the quantum of sentence in aforesaid offences are concerned, on this ground too, the appeal on behalf of the State is not found to be maintainable as the learned trial Court keeping in view the factum of previous enmity and absence of independent support of story and also keeping in view the attending facts and circumstances of the case has awarded the sentence of 2 years R.I. with fine under Section 325 of IPC; 04 months R.I. with fine under Section 323 of IPC as well as 04 month's R.I. with fine under Section 148 of IPC and 01 year R.I. with fine under Section 452 of IPC. In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court keeping in view the evidence on record and attending facts and circumstances of the case is on lower side. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the State for enhancement and against acquittal of the accused persons under Section 307 of IPC i.e. Cr.A. No.4984/2020 and M.Cr.C. No.33858/2020 are dismissed.
20. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court is found to be proper and in accordance with law. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences is hereby affirmed. The sentence imposed upon them by the Trial Court is also maintained, as the same does not appear to be excessive or disproportionate to the nature of the offences proved against them. Therefore, the criminal appeals being Cr.A. No. 376/2020, Cr.A. No. Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 02-04-2026 12:48:34 12 CRA-1943-2020 477/2020 and Cr.A. No. 1943/2020 are dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court are hereby upheld.
21. The appellants are directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith to serve out the remaining part of their sentence, if not already undergone.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE mrs. mishra Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 02-04-2026 12:48:34