Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalla @ Kallu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18426
1 CRA-2799-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2799 of 2013
KALLA @ KALLU SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms.Indu Pandey - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved of judgment
dated 24.8.2013 passed by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge-East Nimar,
District Khandwa in Sessions Case No.45/2013 convicting the appellant
Naru @ Anar Singh for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C") and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for
life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo
additional imprisonment for two months.
2. Vide impugned judgment dated 24.8.2013 passed by learned IV
Additional Sessions Judge-East Nimar, District Khandwa in Sessions Case
No.45/2013, the appellants Kalla @ Kallu Singh and Bablu have also been
convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C and sentenced to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18426
2 CRA-2799-2013
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment
of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for two months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.11.2012, deceased Ashok S/o.
Ramsingh had gone to the shop of Ashok Gond (PW.1) to buy Bidi and
Matchbox alongwith his co-brother Rameshwar (PW.17) and at about 12:30
PM, accused Kalla @ Kallu Singh, Naru @ Anar Singh and Bablu met
them. Kalla @ Kallu Singh said to Ashok that his son had abducted his sister,
your parents are not saying anything but you speak too much and started
abusing them. Kalla @ Kallu Singh and Bablu had had caught hold of Ashok
and Naru @ Anar Singh had caused injury with a Knife on his right thigh
and thereafter all the three accused persons ran away from the spot. As per
prosecution story, again the assailants alongwith other co-accused persons,
who have been acquitted, visited the house of Ashok and beat him with kicks
and fists and thereafter Ashok died on the way to Hospital.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that firstly, there
was no intention to cause death otherwise there would have been multiple
stab injuries. Reading from the testimony of Dr.Ramdas Bakoria (PW.3),
who conducted the postmortem of deceased Ashok, learned counsel submits
that the injury on the thigh turned fatal, as a result of which, Ashok
succumbed to that injury on account of excessive blood loss. The
Postmortem Report is Exhibit P/8 in which cause of death of Ashok is
mentioned as excessive blood loss from body as resulting of stab wound
injured largest (big) blood vessels leading to hypovolemic hemorrhagic
shock resulting cardiorespiratory arrest and finally death. The death has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18426
3 CRA-2799-2013
shown to be homicidal in nature.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there being a single
injury caused to the non-vital part of the body of deceased Ashok, the
offence will fall under Section 304 and not under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
The role of Kalla @ Kallu Singh and Bablu is doubtful and, therefore, the
conviction of Kalla @ Kallu Singh and Bablu with the aid of Section 34 of
the I.P.C is not called for.
6. Learned Government Advocate for the State in his turn submits that the
testimony of eye-witness Rameshwar (PW.17) and that of the wife of
deceased, namely Phoolwati Bai (PW.6) has remained unrebutted and
according to their testimony, the conviction of the appellants is required to
be maintained.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
8. It is evident that Rameshwar (PW.17), who is co-brother of deceased
Ashok, has supported the prosecution case. Rameshwar (PW.17) has stated
that Bablu had caught hold of the hands of Ashok whereas Kalla @ Kallu
Singh had caught hold the waist of Ashok and thereafter Naru @ Anar Singh
had taken out a Knife and had caused injury to Ashok on his right thigh and
when it started bleeding, he had lifted Ashok and had taken him to his
residence.
9. The incident took place in two parts. The second part of the incident
could not be corroborated and has not been substantiated either from the
medical evidence or from the testimony of Phoolwati Bai (PW.6), the wife of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18426
4 CRA-2799-2013
deceased Ashok, who was present at her residence and has categorically
stated that she had locked her house and had gone to call her mother. No
incident took place at her residence.
10. Ramsingh (PW.7) has stated that no incident took place at the house of
Ashok and, therefore, the second part of the incident in regard to which
Rameshwar (PW.17) has stated that after the first part of the incident, seven
persons came to the house of Ashok and started assaulting Ashok, is not
substantiated from the medical evidence as well as the eye-witness account
of Phoolwati Bai (PW.6) and Ramsingh (PW.7).
11. Rameshwar (PW.17) has admitted in Paragraph No.12 of his testimony
that on the date of the incident, he and Ashok were under the influence of
Alcohol.
12. Phoolwati Bai (PW.6) is the wife of deceased Ashok. Phoolwati Bai
(PW.6) has stated that on the fateful day, Rameshwar (PW.17) had brought
her husband Ashok in a bleeding condition when she asked her husband
Ashok as to who had beaten him, her husband Ashok told her that Bablu had
caught hold of him and Naru @ Anar Singh had caused stab wound and
thereafter he could not give further detail about the incident. Her husband
was kept in a Bullock Cart by her in-laws and Ashok died on the way to
Hospital.
13. The aforesaid part of the testimony of Phoolwati Bai (PW.6) to whom
injured Ashok narrated that Bablu had caught hold of him and Naru @ Anar
Singh had caused injury, is denied by Ramsingh (PW.7) and Geetabai (PW.8)
respectively father and mother of deceased Ashok but in their cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18426
5 CRA-2799-2013
examination, they have admitted that they had met Ashok and he was
unconscious. The aforesaid fact is evident from Paragraph No.18 of the
cross-examination of Ramsingh (PW.7) and similarly Geetabai (PW.8) in
Paragraph No.9 of her testimony, has admitted that when they had met
Ashok, he was unconscious.
14. Another fact, which has come on record, is that the house of Ashok is
different from the house of Ramsingh (PW.7) and Geetabai (PW.8) and
admittedly as per the testimony of Phoolwati Bai (PW.6), Ramsingh (PW.7)
and Geetabai (PW.8) had reached the house of Ashok after the information
was given with regard to the injuries caused to Ashok. Thus, it is evident that
the attempt on behalf of Ramsingh (PW.7) and Geetabai (PW.8) to implicate
Kalla @ Kallu Singh as an assailant appears to be an exaggeration.
15. Another fact, which has come on record, is that Phoolwati Bai (PW.6)
has admitted in her testimony that Kalla @ Kallu Singh is related to her and
is her brother-in-law in relationship.
16. Another aspect, which is stated by the prosecution witnesses is that
Meera D/o.Ramsingh (PW.7) was abducted by one of the sons of Kalla @
Kallu Singh and there was enmity between these two families.
17. We are conscious that enmity is a double edged weapon and, therefore,
looking to the admission made by Rameshwar (PW.17) that he was under the
influence of Alcohol alongwith deceased Ashok when testimony of
Phoolwati Bai (PW.6) is read then it is evident that there were two persons,
namely, Bablu and Naru @ Anar Singh. Babu had caught hold of deceased
Ashok and Naru had caused stab wound. Thus, in our opinion, the benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18426
6 CRA-2799-2013
doubt is required to be extended in favour of appellant Kalla @ Kallu Singh
and accordingly we extend the benefit of doubt and set aside the conviction
of appellant Kalla @ Kallu Singh for the offence under Section 302/34 of the
I.P.C.
18. As far as appellant Bablu and appellant Naru @ Anar Singh are
concerned, the role attributed to Bablu is of holding the hands of the
deceased when Naru @ Anar Singh had caused stab wound on his right
thigh. Dr.Ramdas Bakoria (PW.3) has admitted in his testimony that the
bruises, which were available on other parts of the body of deceased Ashok,
could have been caused in a normal course by dragging etc. It is evident that
the stab wound, which caused the death of Ashok was one, which has been
caused on his right thigh by Naru @ Anar Singh.
19. Thus, it is evident that though the appellants were having knowledge
that their act is likely to cause death of Ashok but there was no intention to
cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and,
therefore, the conviction of appellant Bablu and appellant Naru @ Anar
Singh needs to be modified from one under Sections 302 & 302/34 of the
I.P.C to Sections 304 Part-II and 304 Part-II/34 of the I.P.C and their jail
sentence is modified in above terms. Appellant Naru @ Anar Singh and
appellant Bablu are directed to undergo imprisonment for seven years with
fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer
additional imprisonment for three months each.
20. As far as appellant Bablu is concerned, he remained in custody from
17.11.2012 to 23.8.2013 and from the date of the impugned judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18426
7 CRA-2799-2013
i.e.24.8.2013 till he was released on bail vide order dated 29.11.2013 but as
he could not appear before Registry of this Court on 15.5.2017 in compliance
of order dated 11.4.2017, a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against
him and he was taken into custody. Appellant Bablu again applied for
suspension of remaining part of his jail sentence vide I.A.No.14472/2017 and
was granted the benefit of bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 15.9.2017. Appellant Bablu be taken into custody for undergoing
remaining part of his jail sentence.
21. As far as appellant Naru @ Anar Singh is concerned, he remained in
custody from 17.11.2012 to 23.8.2013 and is in custody from the date of the
impugned judgment i.e.24.8.2013 till this date, therefore, the jail sentence of
appellant Naru @ Anar Singh is declared to be undergone and if he is not
required in any other case, he be released forthwith.
22. With above modification, this appeal is allowed in part and is disposed
of as such.
23. The case property be disposed of as per the order of the learned Trial
Court.
24. Record be sent back forthwith.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18426
8 CRA-2799-2013
