Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxminarayan @ Aakash Markam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60400
1 CRA-1689-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 20th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1689 of 2023
LAXMINARAYAN @ AAKASH MARKAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prem Narayan Verma - amicus curiae for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This appeal is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 25.11.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in ST No. 09/2022 whereby learned trial Court has convicted the present appellant Laxminarayan @ Akash Markam S/o Ramppa Markam under Section 302 IPC and has sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life Time and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation of further one year rigorous imprisonment.
2. It is submitted that, as per the prosecution case, incident took place on 17.10.2021 between 08:00 - 08:30 p.m. at the spur of the moment, when without taking any undue advantage of the position of the victim, accused had hit with a wooden plank as a result of which, injured sustained injuries. Injured Anil Yadav was taken to hospital and thereafter, he died on 18.10.2021 at about 05:30 a.m. Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 27-11-2025 11:46:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60400 2 CRA-1689-2023
3. It is submitted that, since incident took place at the spur of moment and as per the post-mortem Doctor, Dr. Harshvardhan Kudape (PW-
4), death of deceased was caused due to shock and hemorrhage on account of head injury which were antemortem and might have been caused by the wooden plank and opined that, duration of injuries were 12 to 18 hours from medical examination and further opined that head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
4. It is submitted that, since incident took place at the spur of the moment, there was no premeditation and no intention to cause death, trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC rather than convicting him under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
5. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor supports the impugned judgment and submits that, no indulgence is called for.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record.
7. Bittu Uike (PW-1) has stated that, Anil is residing behind Kali Mandir. Laxminarayan @ Akash is residing at a distance of about 07 houses ahead the house of Anil. He stated that, Laxminarayan @ Akash is involved in business of selling illicit liquor but further stated that, he had not seen any altercation in past between Anil and Laxminarayan @ Akash.
8. It is evident from the evidence of Bittu Uike (PW-1) that he stated Vicky Dole had informed him that, Laxminarayan @ Akash had hit Anil with a patia and if need being, he will give statements.
9. Sunita Yadav (PW-2) is the hearsay witness, inasmuch as she Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 27-11-2025 11:46:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60400 3 CRA-1689-2023 states that Bittu Bhaiya (PW-1) had informed her that Laxminarayan @ Akash was beating Anil in front of house of Suresh Yadav and Anil was lying on the road. Bittu (PW-1) had informed that Laxminarayan @ Akash had hit Anil on his head with a patia. Then she states that, she had reached the house of Suresh and taken Anil in her lap and asked Anil as to what had happened then Anil stated that Laxminarayan @ Akash had hit him with a patia. Thus, it is evident that, Sunita Yadav (PW-2) is a hearsay witness and has not seen the incident taking place with her own eyes.
10. Mansi Yadav (PW-3) stated that, Laxminarayan @ Akash is known to her. Her father Anil Yadav was having a shop to sell the materials o f Puja-Path. She was studying at her home. On 17.10.2021 when Bittu Uncle (PW-1) came and informed Umesh that Anil was beaten by Laxminarayan @ Akash Markam with a Patia in front of house of Suresh Yadav, thereafter, she alongwith Umesh, Bittu, her mother, Bua- Sunita Yadav had reached the place of the incident, where they saw that, Anil was lying unconscious on the road in a blood pool. There was lot of crowd surrounding that location.
11. Thus, evidence of Mansi Yadav (PW-3) discredits the evidence of Sunita Yadav (PW-2) that Anil had given an oral dying declaration to her in regard to involvement of Laxminarayan @ Akash Markam.
12. Dr. Harshvardhan Kudape (PW-4) who had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Anil stated that, there was a lacerated wound on the middle of the forehead on the frontal bone measuring 1.5 x 0.5 c.m bone deep. On opening that wound was found to contain frontal bone Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 27-11-2025 11:46:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60400 4 CRA-1689-2023 fracture beneath it. There was also fracture of left partial bone, as a result of which hematoma had occurred and brain matter had come out. Head of the deceased was bandaged. In the opinion Dr. Harshvardhan Kudape (PW-4) stated that cause of death was on account of blood loss and shock arising out of the said injuries. His postmortem report is Ex.P-5 which contains his signatures.
13. In cross-examination this witness (PW-4) admitted that, at the time of postmortem he had examined the body of Anil after removing his cloths and except for one injury on head, there were no other injuries marks.
14. Umesh Yadav (PW-6) is the brother of deceased Anil Yadav he is a hearsay witness. He admitted that, his neighbour Bittu had informed him that infront of house of the Suresh Yadav, Laxminarayan @ Akash Markam had hit Anil with a wooden plank.
15. Vinita Yadav (PW-7) stated that Anil Yadav was her husband. Bittu Uike (PW-1) had informed her that in front of house of Suresh Yadav Laxminarayan @ Akash Markam had hit Anil Yadav with a wooden plank on his head and he was bleeding , then she had gone to the place of the incident.
16. Vikkey Dole (PW-8) is the star prosecution witness, he has stated that, he had gone to Sonpur to drop his friend Vinod Vanshkar. When he was returning, he saw that one person was beating another with patia. When he tried to intervene, then he was threatened. In cross-examination, this witness (PW-8)Vikkey Dole admits that before the family members of the victim had arrived, one lady from the house of the assailant had taken him and he was Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 27-11-2025 11:46:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60400 5 CRA-1689-2023 not present at the place of the incident. In para-7, Vikkey Dole has stated that, he was the first to reach the place of the incident and he had seen the incident. There were no villagers except for him at the place of incident. In para-10 this witness (PW-8) admits that, he cannot say as to on what basis altercation had taken place.
17. Suresh Yadav (PW-9) stated that, a dispute was going on between Akash Markam and Anil Yadav in front of his house. However, statement of Suresh Yadav that Akash had hit thrice is not corroborated with the medical evidence.
18. There is a seizure of wooden plank besides other articles which were subjected to FSL reporting and as per the FSL reporting Article-A1 i.e. Shirt of the deceased Anil, Article B dressing bandage, Article-E wooden plank, Article-F shirt of the accused Laxminarayan @ Akash Markam and Article-G Pants contain human blood. Since samples were disintegrated, blood group could not be determined.
19. Thus, when total evidence is taken into consideration, then, it is evident that, its a case of sudden altercation. It is also a case of single blow given with a wooden plank and therefore, case will fall under fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC and accordingly, when these facts are taken into consideration, then case will fall under Section 304 Part-II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC as the altercation was sudden, there was no premeditation, there is no evidence of accused taking any undue advantage of preposition of the deceased and it has come on record that even Anil was a habitual consumer of liquor, since case of the present appellant is covered Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 27-11-2025 11:46:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60400 6 CRA-1689-2023 under fourth Exception, conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
20. Therefore, it is altered from one under Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC and accordingly, appellant Laxminarayan @ Akash Markam is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
21. The appeal is partly allowed with the modification in the judgment of conviction and sentence as indicated above.
22. Being a Amicus Curiae Shri Prem Narayan Verma, Advocate will be entitled to receive fees from the High Court Legal Services Committee or M.P. State Legal Services Authority on production of copy of the order-sheet and the judgment being passed today.
23. Case property be disposed of in terms of the order of the Trial Court.
24. Record of the Trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
AR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 27-11-2025
11:46:42