Madhya Pradesh High Court
Siyaram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17591
1 CRA-280-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 4 th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 280 of 2020
SIYARAM AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Kumar Naveria - Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Shweta Yadav - Dy. Advocate General for the respondent-State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Devnarayan Mishra
With the consent of the parties, the case is finally heard at motion hearing
stage.
This appeal has been filed being aggrieved with the judgment dated
14.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deori, District-Sagar
(M.P.) in S.T. No.494/2015 by which all the appellants have been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for Life with fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each and further appellant no.1-
Siyaram has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(b) of
Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with the fine amount of
Rs.500/- and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years
with fine amount of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case before the trial Court was that on 08.10.2015 in
village Khirka, the appellant-Harinandan with co-accused persons Balkishna and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17591
2 CRA-280-2020
Halle caught hold the deceased and appellant-Siyaram assaulted the deceased-
Chandresh by Katarna on his head. The appellant-Prabhudayal assaulted him with
an axe and co-accused Ram Singh assaulted with Lathi and they were saying to
kill him. Jagdish, Kamal and Pawan were trying to rescue the deceased. At that
time, the acquitted co-accused Prakash also reached there and assaulted the
deceased-Chandresh with a piece of stone and left the deceased assuming that he
died. The deceased's brother Rajendra got the information from his friend
Chandrabhan who saw the incident. He lodged an FIR in Police Station-
Gaurjhamar. On that, FIR as a crime no.217/2015 was recorded under Sections
307, 341, 294, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC against the seven accused persons. The
deceased was brought to the hospital. The doctor declared him brought dead. The
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The appellants along
with other co-accused persons were arrested. The weapons were recovered from
the possession of the appellants and co-accused persons which were sent for FSL
examination. After usual investigation, the charge sheet under Section 302, 147,
148 and 149 of IPC was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deori,
District-Sagar. On commitment and transfer, the case was submitted before the
trial Court.
3. The trial Court read over the charges under Section 148, 302 in alternate
302/149 of IPC and also under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act to the appellants.
The appellants abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. The trial Court recorded the
prosecution evidence and examined the witnesses under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
4. The appellants had taken the defence that the deceased was aggressor and
in right to private defence, Jaggi @ Jagdish assaulted the deceased with Pana and
Prabhudayal, after snatching the axe, assaulted the deceased and moved in a way
that he may defend himself which hit the hand of the deceased and the deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17591
3 CRA-280-2020
died. It is also submitted that the appellant-Harinandan s/o Prahlad has also
suffered the injuries in the incident as proved by Dr. Manoj Kumar Jain (DW-3)
and the treatment papers (Ex.D-4 to Ex.D-11). In alternate, it is also submitted
that the appellants are innocent. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties,
passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court convicted the appellants Siyaram,
Prabhudayal and Harinandan and acquitted the other accused persons Ram Singh,
Balkishan, Prakash and Harigovind. Hence, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that they had proved
before the trial Court while examining the defence witness Dasrath (DW-1),
Ganpat (DW-2), Dr. Manoj Kumar Jain (DW-3) and appellant-Harinandan (DW-
4) that the deceased himself was aggressor. It is further submitted that the incident
had taken place all of sudden and the deceased-Chandresh was the person who
comes from the criminal background. The deceased came with a chicken in the
shop of Kamal (PW-3) who has a tea and pan shop in a Gumti as insisted by the
deceased to close the shop and cooked chicken for him. On that, Kamal (PW-3)
told to deceased-Chandresh that no family member is in his house and there is no
fuel to cook the chicken and he could not cook the chicken. On that, the deceased-
Chandresh insisted to close the shop and brought the kerosene oil and cooked
chicken for him. Kamal (PW-3), who is a poor person, was being pressurised then
the quarrel started and the deceased-Chandresh assaulted him with a Pana and
assaulted the appellant-Harinandan. At that moment, Gudda @ Rajendra also
reached there and assaulted the appellant-Harinandan with an axe. As a result,
appellant-Harinandan fell down on the ground and Jagdish assaulted the deceased-
Chandresh with the same Pana. The sudden quarrel started and the deceased-
Chandresh got the injury and died. Thus, there was no common intention and the
appellants were not the assailants. Hence, the appellants are not liable to any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17591
4 CRA-280-2020
offence.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the quarrel
took place in which the deceased has died. Thus, there was no intention to murder
the deceased and the injuries sustained by the deceased were not enough or not of
such a nature that the appellants had assaulted the deceased with cruelty. Thus,
their offence comes under the purview of Exception IV of Section 304 of IPC. The
appellants are in the custody. Hence, they may be released treating undergone
period as a sentence, in the interest of justice, may be served.
7. Learned Government Advocate for the State has submitted that it may be
that the quarrel had suddenly taken place but reaching on the spot the appellants
alongwith other co-accused persons had shared the common intention and in
pursuance of common intention, the injuries were caused to the deceased which
were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Hence, the appellants
are not entitled for the benefit of doubt and their case does not come under the
purview of Section 302 of IPC culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Hence, this appeal be dismissed.
8. We have heard the parties and perused the record.
9. Dr. Narendra Bansal (PW-17) has stated that on 09.10.2015, he was
posted as a Medical Officer in District Hospital, Sagar. The deceased-Chandresh
s/o Hiralal Lodhi r/o Bamhni, P.S. Gaurjhamar was brought in the hospital as he
sustained the injuries in a quarrel. Postmortem report was conducted by him and
injuries were found : (i) incised injury was found in the right arm measuring 7x3
cm muscle deep and bone was visible from the outside, (ii) incised wound was
found in the left forearm measuring 4x1.5 cm muscle deep and bone was visible,
(iii) incised wound in the left side of frontotemporal region measuring 8x3x4 cm
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17591
5 CRA-280-2020
bone deep, (iv) a circular punctured wound in the right side of frontoparietal
region measuring 2.5x2.5x4 cm. On opening the scalp, in the right side of head,
there was a depressed fracture in the frontal bone measuring 3.5x4 cm, lacerated
wound measuring 3x2x1 cm in the right frontal lobe and a contusion measuring
4x3 cm in the left side of the brain.
10. As per the opinion of Doctor, the deceased died due to injuries
specifically the injuries suffered on the head. Doctor has proved the MLC report
alongwith x-ray report (Ex.P-57 to Ex.P-59) and Postmortem Report (Ex.P-56). In
the cross-examination, this witness had clearly stated that the injuries suffered on
the head was the main reason of the death and the injuries were caused by hard and
blunt object. The injuries no.1 and 2 were on the hand and in injury no.3, there
were no fracture and three injuries were not caused on the vital parts of the body.
11. On the circumstances of the injuries, the role of the appellant-Kamal
Singh (PW-3) is the person who was present on the spot from the beginning to
end. This witness had stated that the deceased-Chandresh was his nephew. He
heard the voice of the father of the deceased, Heera (PW-5) then he went towards
the spot. He tried to save Prabhudayal. Siyaram was also present 1.50 feet distance
from the spot. Harinandan was lying on the spot in the injured condition. The
deceased-Chandresh was lying on the ground in unconscious state. He saw
Prabhudayal in assaulting the deceased and other than he had not seen any person
in assaulting the deceased.
12. The witness Rajendra Singh Lodhi (PW-1) had stated that there was
quarrel in a chai-pan Gumti with Kamal Singh (PW-3) and accused persons
Siyaram, Prabhudayal, Ram Singh, Prakash, Harinanda, Balkishan and Halle were
also making the quarrel. When he reached on the spot, he saw that Siyaram was
having a Katarna, Prabhudayal was having an axe, Ram Singh was having a Lathi,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17591
6 CRA-280-2020
Prakash was having stone and Harinandan caught hold his brother's right hand and
Balkishna caught hold his brother's left hand and Halle caught hold his brother's
feet. Harinandan assaulted his brother with Katarna, Prabhudayal assaulted with
an axe (Kulhadi) and Prakash assaulted the deceased with Lathi. He reached on
the spot and putting the deceased in the Gama vehicle brought the deceased to
Police Station and he lodged the FIR.
13. When this witness has been thoroughly cross-examined, this witness
had shown ignorance how Harinanda and Jagdish @ Jaggi got the injury in the
incident. In para no.16 of the cross-examination, he had also stated that he could
not tell that who started the quarrel. He is also not having the knowledge that
firstly Jagdish and Harinandan were assaulted. He is not having the knowledge
that in the right to private defence, the other party had caused the injury to his
brother. He had also stated that the deceased-Chandresh was putting pressure on
Kamal to close his tea pan shop. When Harinandan and Jagdish protested and
objected with the deceased to make the close the shop of Kamal, Chandresh slept
to Jagdish and quarrel was started with Jagdish and Chandresh. On that, Maharaj
Singh, Jeevan and Makhan reached on the spot. It is also admitted that he is not
having the knowledge that Jagdish had snatched the hockey, that the deceased was
having and assaulting to opposite party, assaulted with that to the deceased, as a
result, the deceased sustained injuries. Thus, it is clear that on the material point,
this witness had shown his ignorance but had admitted that the place of quarrel is
the shop where Kamal was running his Gumti of tea-pan. The quarrel started from
the both sides.
14. Jagdish (PW-2) had stated that when he visited the spot, he saw that
Siyaram and Prabhudayal were present on the spot. Chandresh and Harinandan
were lying in the injured condition on the ground. When he saw Chandresh, there
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17591
7 CRA-280-2020
were injuries on left side of his head and grievous injury in the right side of the
head then they called the vehicle and putting Chandresh and went to Police
Station-Gaurjhamar. Then, the deceased was sent to District Hospital Sagar from
the Police Station. The Doctor declared the deceased brought dead.
15. Witness Vinod (PW-4) had stated that at 8:00 pm when he was going
from his house towards Nala, he saw that Jagdish was assaulting with an axe to
Chandresh. Chandresh saved him by Pana (lever) of operating valves of pipeline.
Jagdish assaulted Chandresh with an axe and Chandresh suffered injuries in his
hand. On that, Jagdish snatched Pana (the lever to operate water pipeline) and
assaulted the deceased with that Pana.
16. Heeralal (PW-5) the father of the deceased, who visited the spot after
the incident, has also supported that the appellants were assaulting the deceased.
The same fact has been supported by Pawan (PW-6). The FIR was immediately
lodged.
17. In the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the
quarrel started on the point that the deceased brought a chicken and asked Kamal
(PW-3) to cook the chicken for him. On that, he said that there is no family
member who can cook the chicken for him. He had also stated that he had no fuel
to cook the chicken. On that, the deceased put pressure on him and become
adamant that Kamal will cook chicken for him and put pressure to Kamal to close
his chai-pan Gumti. On that, the other persons, who were present on the spot,
objected this act then the quarrel had taken place. The deceased had also assaulted
the other party as it is clear from the statement of Jagdish (PW-2) that the
Chandresh and Harinandan both were lying in the injured condition. The same
fact has also been supported by the Kamal (PW-3) and Doctor, who conducted the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17591
8 CRA-280-2020
MLC and treated the appellant-Harinandan, had stated that on the next day of the
incident i.e. 09.10.2015 (when he was arrested), he found a contusion in the
frontoparietal region of Harinandan measuring 6x1 cm and other three injuries of
the abrasion and swelling. As per the Doctor, it was found after x-ray examination
that there was a fracture in the frontoparietal region. On the same day, Jaggi @
Jagdish was also brought. He was also having complaint of pain.
18. From the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, it is also clear
that the prosecution has not explained in what circumstances Harinandan and
Jagdish suffered these injuries. In that situation, the adverse inference can be
drawn against the appellants. The interested witness Rajendra (PW-1) has failed to
explain in what circumstances, this quarrel started but from the statement of
prosecution witnesses and the FIR lodged immediately, it is clear that the
appellants Siyaram and Prabhudayal had been mentioned as assailants and the
injuries suffered by Harinandan and the statement of the witnesses that he was
present on the spot where the deceased was lying on the ground in the injured
condition and the injuries suffered to this appellant. Except one injury, all injuries
were simple in nature. Arms were recovered from the appellants and bloodstain
was found on that.
19. In the same way, bloodstain was also found on articles-G Katarna
which was recovered from Siyaram and an axe recovered from Prabhudayal.
These appellants were involved in assaulting the deceased. As as result, the
deceased died. But from the prosecution evidence itself, it is clear that the quarrel
had suddenly taken place. As the quarrel took place when the deceased became
adamant with Kamal (PW-3) to close his shop and cook chicken for him. Other
party protested and the deceased himself had assaulted the accused particularly
Harinandan. Thus, the quarrel suddenly took place and it does not appear that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17591
9 CRA-280-2020
appellants had taken undue advantage or of the situation or shown any cruelty
towards the deceased. When the deceased fell down on the ground, the accused
persons ran away except appellant-Harinandan.
20. Looking to the nature of the injuries, the appellants' acts come under the
purview of Exception IV of Section 300 of IPC : that provides that the culpable
homicide is not amounting to murder if it is committed without premeditation in a
sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the
offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner, and
the explanation clause: it provides that it is immaterial in such cases which party
offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
21. Thus, the trial Court had wrongly convicted the appellants for the
offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC. Hence, the conviction recorded
by the trial Court is set aside and in place of Section 302/34 of IPC, the appellants
are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304/34 Part-I of the IPC.
22. Consequently, jail sentence of the appellants is modified and the
appellants are directed to suffer the rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine
amount of Rs.5,000/- each in default, in depositing the fine amount, the appellants
shall further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
23. The appellant-Siyaram has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 25(1B)(b) Arms Act but looking to the facts that the quarrel
suddenly took place and Katarna is the apparatus of agriculturist which is used in
day to day agricultural activity. Furthermore, to punish the offender under Section
27 of Arms Act, the violation of Section 5/7 of Arms Act is required to be proved.
The findings of the trial Court is upheld that the appellant was having a sharp
edged weapon having blade of more than 6 inch long or 1.5/2 inch width then also
the offence is punishable as held by the trial Court under Section 25(1B)(b) of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17591
10 CRA-280-2020
Arms Act being the violation of Section 4 of the Arms Act but the trial Court
without considering these facts had convicted and sentenced the appellant-
Siyaram for the offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act also which is
against the law. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant-Siyaram
under Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act is set aside .
24. With the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the
conviction and sentence of the appellants is modified as stated above.
25. The appellants' detention period shall be set off in the substantial jail
sentence.
26. The case property of this case be disposed of as per the order of the trial
Court.
27. Supersession warrant be prepared and sent to the concerned jail
authority.
28. With the copy of the judgment, the record of the trial Court be sent
back.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
HK
