Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Prasad @ Nanhe Bhai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641
1 CRA-572-2016
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 9th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 572 of 2016
RAM PRASAD @ NANHE BHAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Hussain Ali Saify, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4247 of 2021
HEERALAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prabhat Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal These criminal appeals are filed by the convicted accused persons being aggrieved of judgment dated 12/01/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, Distt. Damoh in S.T. No.374/2011 whereby learned trial Court has convicted all the eight accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 2 CRA-572-2016 persons/appellants under Section 302 read with 149 in relation to death of Paramlal, Sections 148, 323 read with Section 149 of IPC in relation to injured Balchand and Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC in relation to Mayarani and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, R.I. for one year along with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 148 of IPC, R.I. for six months along with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC (two counts) with default stipulations of one year R.I, six month R.I. and three months R.I. (two counts) each respectively.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is improper. There was a counter case filed by the appellants/accused persons against complainant party vide S.T. No.153/2012 in which five members of the complainant party namely Balchand, S/o Nanna Kachhi, Kamalkant, S/o Nanna Kachhi, Purushottam, S/o Nanna Kachhi, Tulsi S/o Heeralal and Vijay, S/o Darbari Kachi were implicated.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the members of the complainant party namely Balchand, S/o Nanna Kachhi, Kamalkant, S/o Nanna Kachhi, Purushottam, S/o Nanna Kachhi, Tulsi S/o Heeralal and Vijay, S/o Darbari Kachi have been convicted vide judgment dated 12/01/2016 passed in S.T. No.153/2012 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, Distt. Damoh, and convicted Balchand, Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 3 CRA-572-2016 Kamalkant and Tulsi under Section 324, 323/34 of IPC in relation to Heeralal who is accused in Cr.A. No.572/2016, under Section 323/34 in relation to Tikaram and Ram Prasad who too are accused in Cr.A. No.572/2016. Similarly, Vijay and Purushottam have been convicted under Section 323 of IPC in relation to injured-Tikaram and Ram Prasad on two counts and have been sentenced with two years R.I. along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 324. Similarly, they have been sentenced for six months RI along with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323/34 on three counts each respectively with default stipulations. Therefore, in a case of free fight, conviction of the all accused persons without going through the material evidence especially when it was a case of free fight, needs to be set aside.
4. It is submitted that prosecution case, in short, is that on 25/05/2011 at about 7.00 p.m., there was an altercation between Param Patel and Chhotelal Vishwakarma on account of some dispute between the children who were playing when Heera armed with Hasiya, Tikaram armed with axe, Chhotelal armed with Gupti, Nanhebhai armed with an axe, Prakash armed with lathi, Srikant armed with an iron rod, Sudama armed with a Gupti and Gudda armed with a lathi, came to the house of Paramlal and started abusing. House of complainant-Balchand is by the side of house of Paramlal and when Paramlal and complainant-Balchand came out from their house, then accused persons started beating Balchand and Paramlal, at that time, they were intercepted by Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 4 CRA-572-2016 complainant's sister-in-law Mayarani and Paramlal's wife Nonibai. Accusation is that Chhotelal had given Gupti blow to Paramlal, as a result of which his intestine had come out whereas Srikant had hit Paramlal with a rod. Tikaram had hit Balchand on his head with an axe, as a result of which, he started bleeding, then Sudama had hit on his back with a Gupti. Srikant hit him on the neck with a rod, and the other accused assaulted him with kicks and fists.
5. In the incident, sister-in-law of Balchand namely Mayarani sustained injuries on her hands, back and shoulders whereas wife of Paramlal namely Nonibai also sustained injuries. Paramlal had fallen unconscious. When other villagers gathered, then accused persons ran away. Matter was reported at Police Station Gaisabad, Distt. Damoh, where crime was registered. Injured were taken to hospital. They were medically examined, MLC was prepared, spot map was prepared, statement of witnesses were recorded, accused persons were arrested and after investigation, charge sheet was filed. Accused abjured their guilt and pleaded their innocence, therefore, trial was commenced and the appellants have been convicted as above.
6. In the counter case i.e. S.T. No.153/2012 allegation is that on 25/05/2011 at about 6.30 p.m. in front of house of Heeralal, Kamalkant and Tulsi along with Balchand had caused injuries with Gupti to the appellants, which is a sharp penetrating object with a common object and thereafter they were beaten.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 5 CRA-572-2016
7. It has come on record that counter cases were registered against the accused and the complainant parties.
8. Paramlal died. He was examined by Dr.R.P. Kori (PW-8) at Government Community Health Centre, Hata where this witness had found that there was a stab wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the left part of the stomach in the lumbar region from which there was excessive bleeding. Peritoneal tissue and omentum tissue had come out. Condition of injured was grievous. Injury was caused by hard and sharp edged object. Injury was homicidal caused within 6 to 8 hours of the incident. Doctor had opined for x-ray of head and sonography of stomach. Later on he was referred to District Hospital, Damoh to a Surgical Specialist.
9. Dr. Sachin Jain (PW-18) had examined Paramlal on 26/05/2011 at District Hospital, Damoh and had conducted his post-mortem. This witness too found that there was a stab wound measuring 2 x 1 x 3 cm. on the left hand side of the umbilicus. Apart from that, there was an abrasion on the chest measuring 6 cm. There was an abrasion on neck measuring 3 cm. and there was no other injury.
10. It is also submitted that thus, its a case of single injury found on the body of Paramlal caused by Chhotelal with the help of Gupti. Other attributed injuries are not medically corroborated. Dr. Sachin Jain (PW-
18) opined that cause of death was on account of excessive blood loss due to internal injuries.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 6 CRA-572-2016
11. Dr. R.P. Kori (PW-8) also examined Balchand at Community Health Centre, Hata where he found that Balchand had sustained injury No.1 measuring 2 x 1.5 cm on the right parietal part of the head. This witness also found one lacerated wound on the left iliac crest measuring 2 x 1 cm for which this witness advised x-ray of hips and iliac crest. Injury No.3 was an abrasion measuring 1 x 0.5 cm on left finger caused by hard and blunt object.
12. Similarly, Dr.R.P. Kori (PW-8) also examined Mayarani and found that there was one swelling measuring 4 x 4 cm on the back of the left palm. This witness advised x-ray of the left palm of the hand to determine the nature of the injury. This witness also examined Nonibai who was complaining of pain, but no external injury was seen. It has come on record that report of this witness i.e. Dr. R.P. Kori (PW-8) is collectively enclosed as Ex.P/27.
13. As far as injuries caused to Paramlal are concerned, this witness opined that they were dangerous to life whereas injuries caused to Nonibai are concerned, they were termed to be simple in nature. This witness advised x-ray for Balchand and Mayarani to ascertain nature of their injuries, however, no x-ray report is available on record to show that injuries caused to Balchand and Mayarani were grievous in nature or any fracture was found in them. This fact can be seen from the evidence of Dr.R.P. Kori (PW-8) who did not depose that as per x-ray report, any fracture was found either on the body of Balchand or Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 7 CRA-572-2016 Mayarani. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that injuries sustained by Balchand can be sustained if he collides with a hard and blunt object. This witness admitted that injuries caused to Mayarani could be self-inflicted also, like hitting on a wall with her hand.
14. Thus, it is pointed out that when there is single injury caused to Paramlal which turned out to be fatal and no human blood was found on stick i.e. Article 'B' recovered from Srikant, stick i.e. Article 'C' recovered from Prakash, axe i.e. Article 'D' recovered from Tikaram, Articles 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H' i.e. Gupti, axe, Hasiya and Gupti recovered from Chhotelal, Ram Prasad, Heeralal and Sudama as per FSL report (Ex.P/40) and admittedly complainant party were the aggressors who had first hit members of the accused party on a trivial issue of dispute amongst the children who were playing together, then conviction of the appellants without understanding that there was no common object and common intention, therefore, the conviction of the appellants Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148, 323 read with Section 149 of IPC is not made out.
15. Shri Abhishek Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no indulgence is called for.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Prosecution exhibited as many as 41 documents i.e. Ex.P/1 to P/41. Three statement i.e. Ex.D/1 to D/3 have been brought on record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 8 CRA-572-2016
17. Roshan (PW-1) deposed that Sudama S/o Ram Prasad Vishwakarma is not known to him. Police had not interrogated Sudama in front of him. This witness was declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case whereas in the charge sheet, this witness has been cited as witness of memorandum and seizure.
18. Balchand (PW-2) deposed that all the accused persons are known to him as they belong to his village. Paramlal was his nephew. Mayarani is known to him. He was in his home when in the afternoon there was an altercation between Paramlal and Chhotelal. Cause of altercation was in regard to play of children. In the evening, Heera, Tikaram, Chhotelal, Nanhebhai, Sudama, Prakash, Gudda, Srikant came to the house of Paramlal and started abusing. According to him, all the accused were armed. This witness saw that as soon as Paramlal came out of his house, accused had beaten Paramlal and when this witness reached to the place of incident, he too was beaten. According to this witness, Tikaram had hit him with an axe, Sudama with a Gupti and Srikant by an iron rod whereas Paramlal was beaten by all the accused persons and Chhotelal had caused an injury with Gupti in the stomach of Paramlal. Thereafter Shankar, Guddu and Heera came and all accused persons ran away.
19. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that children of his elder brother namely Tulsi had a dispute with Butha alias Bhaiyalal, Ribbu and Kallu Patel of village. In that case, he was a witness. This Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 9 CRA-572-2016 witness admitted that a compromise was affected with Ribbu and Kallu whereas he had given evidence against Bhaiyalal, as a result of which Bhaiyalal was convicted. In cross-examination, this witness admitted in para-13 that on account of counter case in which accused sustained injuries, members of complainant parties have been made accused. This witness also admitted that his brother Kamalkant was available with him at Sakore, but, he had not asked Kamalkant to lodge report either at Hata or Damoh. This witness further admitted that after the incident, he had reached Hata hospital by 8.30-9.00 p.m. and distance between Sakore to Hata is about 14 km.
20. It has come on record and not disputed that Dehati Nalisi was lodged at Police Station, Gaisabad on 26/05/2011 at 3.00 a.m. by Sub Inspector Narendra Singh Yadav at the instance of Balchand, S/o Nanha Patel as contained in Ex.P/4. This witness admitted that Sakore is situated on Hata-Panna main road. This witness also admitted that buses travelling from Hata to Panna pass through Sakore. This witness deposed that all the buses travelling from Hata to Gaisabad pass through Morachh, Khamargaur, Pawai, Muhandara through Sakore. This witness also deposed that 15-20 buses pass through that route everyday. This witness admitted that there is a market on every Wednesday at Hinota and all his family members had gone to Hinota. Thereafter this witness improvised his statement by saying that 2-4 persons had gone to the market. This witness admitted that Param too had gone to Hinota so Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 10 CRA-572-2016 also this witness. This witness deposed that he has no information that any dispute had taken place between Param and Chhotelal at Village Hinota. This witness deposed that he had no knowledge that Param and his accomplices had beaten Chhotelal or not. This witness admitted that Param had not sustained many injuries, but, had sustained single injury caused by Gupti.
21. In para-24, this witness admitted that incident took place at the house of Heeralal. Thus, it is admitted that in fact complainant party were the aggressors and they had gone to the house of Heeralal. This witness denied the injuries sustained by Ram Prasad, Heeralal, Sudama and Tikarma. This witness admitted several contradictions in his case- diary statement (Ex.D/1). This witness deposed that in the Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/4), he had informed the Police that incident took place in the courtyard of the deceased-Paramlal, but, if this fact is not mentioned in the Dehati Nalsi, then he cannot say anything. This witness admitted that he had informed that accused had abused Paramlal in his courtyard, but, if this fact is not mentioned in his report, then he cannot say anything about it. Though this witness deposed that all accused had beaten Paramlal, but this fact is not medically corroborated. This witness admitted that in the Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/4) and case-diary statement (Ex.D/1) he has mentioned that all the accused persons had beaten him, but, if this fact is not mentioned, then he cannot give any explanation for the said omission. This witness admitted that he cannot Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 11 CRA-572-2016 say as to which of the weapons injuries were caused to Mayarani and Nonibai.
22. Kamalkant (PW-3) was declared hostile. This witness deposed that accused persons are known to him. Paramlal was his nephew. Police had not made any proceeding or investigation or seizure in front of him. This witness has not supported the prosecution case.
23. Rambabu (PW-4) deposed that all the accused persons are known to him. Yadav, T.I. called this witness-Rambabu and Jamuna to the school of Sakore village when T.I. mentioned name of Tikaram Vishwakarma and mentioned axe in front of him and obtained signatures of this witness and Jamuna. Thereafter T.I. had mentioned name of Ram Prasad in front of him and then obtained signatures of these two witnesses. This witness admitted that at the place of seizure, there was no axe or any other weapon. Thereafter T.I. had mentioned name of Sudama and wrote Gupti in front him, thereafter mentioned name of Srikant and had written iron rod in front of him when this witness and Jamuna had signed. In front of name of Gudda, lathi was written. This witness was declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case.
24. Heeralal (PW-5) deposed that Paramlal was his son. Nonibai is the wife of Paramlal and his daughter-in-law. He had gone to the village to work as labourer. He returned at about 7.00 p.m. and had gone to answer call of nature. When he was answering call of nature, he Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 12 CRA-572-2016 heard certain cries, then he washed himself and came running to the house where he found that Paramlal was lying on floor and Balchand was being beaten by the accused. When he saw Paramlal to be unconscious, he had taken off his cloths and covered him. This witness deposed that Noni and Mayarani were also beaten by the accused persons. After that, he turned unconscious and cannot say as to who all came. Thereafter this witness was declared hostile. This witness is a witness to the spot map and other proceedings contained in Ex.P/26. This witness is also a witness to the recovery vide Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/14. This witness though admitted his signatures on arrest memos Ex.P/20 to P/25, but, denied that Heeralal, Ram Prasad, Chhotelal, Tikaram, Prakash and Srikant were arrested in front of him. This witness deposed that population of Village Sakore is about one thousand and houses of the accused are in neighbourhood. There were good relations with the accused persons. This witness admitted that he had refused to participate in the police proceedings, however, Police forced him to sign documents, otherwise threatened him to face the consequences.
25. This witness also admitted contradictions in his case-diary statement (Ex.D/2). This witness deposed that when he returned, then he had seen Param lying in the courtyard. This witness admitted that he has no information as to whether altercation had already taken place between the two families before his return. This witness also admitted that accused had beaten Balchand for two minutes. This witness Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 13 CRA-572-2016 deposed that despite passing through Hata Police Station, he had not made any report to the Police.
26. Vijay (PW-6) had given intimation (Ex.P/6). Paramlal tied in a green bedsheet, was opened in front of him. This witness is a witness to the intimation for preparation of Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P/7). According to this witness, Paramlal already died by 11.00-12.00 p.m. on 25/11/2011. Thus, lodging of report under Section 307 of IPC on 26/05/2011 raises a doubt as to the authenticity of the report and also it shows that it is a manipulated document.
27. Rameshwar (PW-7) had recovered one Gupti from Sudama. This witness admitted that when TIP was carried out, then he had not identified Sudama properly. In fact, before the Court also this witness had wrongly identified Gudda as Sudama.
28. Dr. R.P. Kori (PW-8) had carried out MLC of injured. Injuries sustained by Mayarani, Noni Bai and Balchand were simple in nature. This witness found one stab wound on the peritoneal cavity of Paramlal and no other injury was reported by this witness.
29. Arjun Singh (PW-10), Patwari, prepared spot map (Ex.P/5). In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he had not shown it on the spot map that as to what is the distance between the place of the incident and the house of Paramlal. This witness admitted that house of deceased and Sunkoo are at some distance from the place of the incident. This witness also admitted that none of the witnesses to this Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 14 CRA-572-2016 spot map (Ex.P/5) had informed that incident took place in the courtyard of Paramlal. This witness deposed that witnesses of the place of incident namely Nonibai, Balchand and Heeralal informed that they had seen the incident from some distance and the distance which was narrated by them is mentioned in Ex.P/5.
30. This witness admitted that house of Sunkoo Sen is adjacent to the place of the incident and no interrogation was made with Sunkoo Sen. In the spot map (Ex.P/5) house of Paramlal is shown at a distance of 2.90 metre and that of Balchand at a distance of 3.10 metre whereas that of Heeralal as 4.45 metre. Thus, it is evident that Arjun Singh (PW-10) clearly stated that place of incident is not the house of Paramlal, but is at a distance from the house of Paramlal. This proves that aggressors were not the accused persons, but, as admitted by Balchand (PW-2), they had gone to the house of the accused persons.
31. Smt.Mayarani (PW-12) deposed that if it is not mentioned in her case-diary statement (Ex.D/3) that Sudama had hit Balchand with a Gupti in his waist, then she cannot give reasons for that omission.
32. Shankarlal (PW-13) was declared hostile. This witness deposed that when he was going from Hata to his home, then he had seen villagers running. This witness has not supported prosecution case. This witness admitted that he had given statement to Police personnel but they were never read over to him. Dhaniram (PW-14) was also declared hostile. This witness has not supported the prosecution case.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 15 CRA-572-2016
33. Sunkoo (PW-16) deposed that all the accused persons are known to him and even Paramlal is known to him. Incident took place at the time of setting of sun. This witness was unwell and inside his house, however, he heard cries of fight between both the parties. Both the parties were accusing each-other. Thereafter this witness gathered information that Paramlal died. This witness was declared hostile.
34. Narendra Singh Yadav (PW-17) carried out investigation. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that he reached the place of incident, Sakore in the night of 25/05/2011, but, could not give time of his arrival. This witness deposed that he had received information on phone at Gaisabad Police Station, but, who had given him information and at what time, he could not state. This witness admitted that on 25/05/2011 at about 6.30 p.m., Heeralal, accused had visited him to lodge report, then stated that he was not present in the Police Station. This witness also admitted that accused had sustained injuries.
35. This witness admitted that on the report of Heeralal, a case was registered by the ASI against Paramu, Balchand, Tulsi, Purushottam, Vijay etc. In para-15, this witness admitted that when he had reached the place of incident, he had not found any physical signs of the incident. This witness also admitted that in the spot map (Ex.P/26), he had not made mention of the distance of various places as are depicted in the spot map.
36. Dr. Sachin Kumar Jain (PW-18) had conducted post-mortem on Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 16 CRA-572-2016 Paramlal at District Hospital, Damoh. This witness deposed that he had found one stab wound measuring 2 x 1 x 3 cm near the umbilicus.
37. Dr.Vishal Shukla (PW-19) deposed that patient was referred on 25/05/2011 itself at 11.45 p.m. from District Hospital, Damoh to Jabalpur, but, he died on the way, therefore, he was brought back.
38. Asharam Chourasia (PW-20) had recorded Marg Intimation and had brought it to Police Station, Gaisabad.
39. When these facts and chronology of events are examined in light of the evidence of Narendra Singh Yadav (PW-17), Sub Inspector or I.O. of the case, accused persons had reached Police Station to lodge a report in regard to the incident which took place with them. As admitted by Balchand (PW-2) and also Arjun Singh (PW-10), Patwari, place of the incident is not the courtyard of Paramlal, but, in front of the house of Heeralal, it means that complainant party were the aggressors who had gone to the house of Heeralal. It has also come on record that there is single injury found on the body of deceased-Paramlal which turned out to be fatal and that is attributed to Chhotelal. Simple injuries were found on the body of Mayarani, Balchand and Nonibai.
40. Narendra Singh Yadav (PW-17) admitted that Heeralal had reached Police Station to lodge the report at 6.30 p.m. Thus, it is evident that there was no unlawful assembly. Incident took place suddenly on account of a dispute between children while they were playing when complainant party had gone to the house of Heeralal. All the injuries Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 17 CRA-572-2016 sustained by three other injured persons are simple in nature. There is no element of rioting in the present case. Seizures made by the prosecution are doubtful.
41. Thus, when these facts are examined in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghappoo Yadav and others Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 1620 , we are of the opinion that conviction of appellant-Chhotelal to whom an injury to Paramlal is attributed with Gupti which turned out to be fatal, in a case of sudden altercation, will fall under Exception-4 to Section 300 of IPC, therefore, we alter his conviction from one under Section 302/149 of IPC to under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. As far as other accused persons are concerned, their conviction under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 of IPC is not made out. Similarly, their conviction under Section 148 of IPC is not made out. However, their conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC is made out.
42. Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed in part and the impugned judgment dated 12/01/2016 passed in S.T. No.374/2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, Distt. Damoh is modified to the extent that conviction of appellant No.2-Chhotelal in Cr.A. No.4247/2021 is altered from one under Section 302/149 of IPC to under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of six months rigorous imprisonment whereas other accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 28-04-2026 17:11:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28641 18 CRA-572-2016 persons namely Heeralal, Ram Prasad alias Nanhebhai, Tikaram, Prakash, Srikant, Sudama and Gudda are acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC so also under Section 148 of IPC, however, their conviction under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC on two counts is altered to one under Section 323 read with Section 34 and they are directed to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of three months rigorous imprisonment on two counts each.
43. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 28-04-2026
17:11:20