Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhawar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11221
1 CRA-9273-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9273 of 2019
BHAWAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri H.S. Rathore, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
HEARD ON : 25.04.2025
DELIVERED ON : 29.04.2025
________________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is preferred
challenging the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to
Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of 1 year
additional R.I. vide judgment dated 05.09.2019 passed in S.T.No.3/2016 by
the First Additional Session Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant Bhawar Singh
caused bodily injuries to Ravindranath @ Gopinath at around 08:15 pm on
21.10.2015 at Karnimata temple situated at village Meriyakhedi within the
territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Kukdeshwar, District Neemuch and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11221
2 CRA-9273-2019
Ravindranath @ Gopinath succumbed to injuries at 10:20 pm of 21.10.2015
at Community Health Centre, Manasa. The crime no.296/15 was registered
against the appellant and after investigation final report was submitted to the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manasa where Criminal Case
No.1199/2015 was registered and vide order dated 17.12.2015 the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Neemuch.
3. The appellant/accused Bhawar Singh abjured guilt and claimed
for trial pleading innocence.
4. To bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined as many as 16
witnesses including Pradeep Pandey (PW-1), Pramod (PW-2), Mohan (PW-
3), Devi Singh (PW-4), Ramgopal (PW-5), Raju (PW-6), Suresh (PW-7),
Chain Singh (PW-8), Arjun Singh (PW-9), Moti Singh (PW-10), Banshilal
(PW-11), Medical Officer - Dr. Ajay Dandotiya (PW-12), Lokesh Singh
(PW-13), Kanhaiyalal (PW-14), Inspector - B.L. Bhanwar (PW-15) and
Inspector - S.K. Yadav (PW-16).
5. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the
appellant/accused either denied or expressed ignorance regarding facts and
circumstances appeared against him in the prosecution evidence and plead
innocence taking the plea of false implication. He put the defence that the
complainant and witnesses wish to grab his agricultural land and have been
falsely implicated. No defence evidence is adduced.
6. Appreciating the prosecution evidence, the trial Court recorded the
finding that Ravindranath @ Gopinath died due to the injuries and injuries
were caused by the appellant using sword (Article/D) of size 33 inches of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11221
3 CRA-9273-2019
length and blade was 26.5 inches and 01.5 inches width with 6.5 inches
handle and rejecting the arguments that the act of the appellant falls within
the category of Section 304 part 2 of the IPC or Section 304 part 1 of the IPC
concluded that the act constitute the offence under Section 302 of the IPC
and convicted the appellant accordingly as mentioned in para 1 of the
judgment.
7. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been
preferred on the ground that the independent witnesses of the case did not
support the case of prosecution. The witnesses of the case and their
statements are self-contradictory. The complainant falsely implicate the
whole family members in this case due to old enmity. There are many
important variations, contradictions and ommissions in the statements of the
witnesses. Investigation is tented & partial. The appellant is old and ill man
and suffering from various old aged deceased. Due to some property dispute
she falsely implicate the present appellant in the case. The prosecution did
not comply with the provisions of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C.
8. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposed
the appeal submitting that neither conviction nor sentence requires
interference.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Perusal of ground no.4 & 5 of the memo of appeal discloses that
the grounds of appeal are not properly drafted as they have not aware with
the facts of the present case.
10. Exhibit-P/13 reveals that incident took place 25 Kms. away in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11221
4 CRA-9273-2019
the south east direction at Karnimata temple, Meriyakhedi from the Police
Station Kukdeshwar. The trial Court has recorded its finding on the
testimony of Devi Singh (PW-4), Arjun Singh (PW-9) & Moti Singh (PW-
10), who are the eye-witnesses of the incident and oral dying declaration of
the Ravindranath @ Gopinath as proved by the Pradeep (PW-1), Pramod
(PW-2) and Mohan (PW-3) who were present with Ravindranath @
Gopinath when he was taken to the Community Health Centre, Manasa,
District Neemuch from the place of incident.
11. The trial Court has properly appreciated and discarded the
defence raised by the appellant that due to dispute regarding land in para 11
of the judgment, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case.
12. Re-appreciation of evidence of theses six above-mentioned
witnesses and the fact that Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit-P/3) recorded on
21.10.2015 at around 22:15 at CHC, Manasa also contains the name of the
appellant as the person who inflicted the injuries to Ravindranath @
Gopinath and the fact that the blood stained sword (Article/D) was recovered
on 24.10.2015 at around 09:00 am on the information of the appellant
recorded as Exhibit-P/8 and the blood stains recovered from the Article/D
found as human blood. As per FSL report Exhibit-P/20, we find no ground to
interfere in the findings of the trial Court and accordingly affirmed that the
appellant caused fatal injuries to Ravindranath @ Gopinath on 21.10.2015 at
08:20 pm.
13. The Medical Officer - Dr. Ajay Dandotiya (PW-12) posted as
Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Manasa on 21.10.2015 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11221
5 CRA-9273-2019
deposed that at 10:10 PM appellant Ravindranath @ Gopilal was brought in
unconscious condition and he died at 10:20 PM and Dr. Ajay Dandotiya
conducted the autopsy at 22.10.2015 at 09:10 AM. and found three injuries
which are mentioned as under:-
"(a) Sharp cut injury of 32 x 8 cm in size that divided left
hand in 2 parts from mid finger to elbow joint;
(b) Right hand amputed by sharp cut injury at level of
wrist joint by sharp object;
(c) Sharp cut injury at right lower limb of size (12 x 3 x 2)
c.m. above knee joint."
14. The Medical Officer - Dr. Ajay Dandotiya (PW-12) opined that
the cause of death is shock due to excessive haemorrhage from sharp cut
injury present on the body part within 24 hours of post-mortem.
15. Referring to para 6 of Dr. Ajay Dandotiya's statement, in which
he admitted that all the injuries were not on any vital part of the body, and if
deceased Ravindranath @ Gopinath would have get instant treatment, then,
he would not have died.
16. It is argued that the offence does not attract the provisions of
Section 300 of the IPC. The act, at the most, attract the provisions of Section
304 Part-II of the IPC or 304 Part-I of the IPC.
17. When, no significant injury had been inflicted on a vital part of
the body, the offence would be 'murder' or merely 'culpable homicide not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11221
6 CRA-9273-2019
amounting to murder' was considered by the Apex Court in the case of State
of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr. reported in (1976) 4
SCC 382 & answered the question in these terms:
"39. ....... All these acts of the accused were preplanned and
intentional, which, considered objectively in the light of the
medical evidence, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death. The mere fact that the beating was designedly
confined by the assailants to the legs and arms, or that none of the
multiple injuries inflicted was individually sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, will not exclude the
application of clause thirdly of Section 300. The expression
"bodily injury" in clause thirdly includes also its plural, so that the
clause would cover a case where all the injuries intentionally
caused by the accused are cumulatively sufficient to cause the
death in the ordinary course of nature, even if none of those
injuries individually measures upto such sufficiency. The
sufficiency spoken of in this clause, as already noticed, is the high
probability of death in the ordinary course of nature, and if such
sufficiency exists and death is caused and the injury causing it is
intentional, the case would fall under clause thirdly of Section 300.
All the conditions which are a prerequisite for the applicability of
this clause have been established and the offence committed by
the accused, in the instant case was 'murder'."
18. In the present case, the injuries were caused at 08:20 pm of
21.10.2015 and Ravindranath @ Gopinath immediately taken to the
Community Health Centre, Manasa arranging the ambulance and
Ravindranath @ Gopinath reached the Community Health Centre at 10:10
pm and he died at 10:20 pm. Accordingly, it cannot be accepted that the
injury or the injuries were not sufficient to cause death of Ravindranath.
Though, they were not on the vital parts of the body but amputating the right
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11221
7 CRA-9273-2019
hand by sword at the level of wrist joint and dividing the left hand in 2 parts
from middle finger to elbow joint and causing the injury on right lower limb
above knee joint cumulatively have effect of causing the death in ordinary
course of nature.
19. In the case of Anda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148 , the
two relevant Sections 299 and 300 respectively are brilliantly analysed and
the relevant observations are made at page 151 in para 7. Before we refer to
those observations, we would refer to certain observations made earlier.
They are as under:--
"The offence of culpable homicide involves the doing of an act
(which term includes illegal omissions) (a) with the intention of
causing death, or (b) with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death or (c) with the knowledge that the
act is likely to cause death. If the death is caused in any of these
three circumstances, the offence of culpable homicide is said to be
committed....... Intention and knowledge in the ingredients of the
section postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude and
this mental condition is the special mens rea necessary for the
offence. The guilty intention in the first two conditions
contemplates the intended death of the person harmed or the
intentional causing of an injury likely to cause his death. The
knowledge in the third condition contemplates knowledge of the
death of the person. Sec. 300 tells us when the offence is murder
and when it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Sec.
300 begins by setting out the circumstances when culpable
homicide turns out into murder which is punishable under sec. 302
and the exceptions in the same section tell us when offence is not
murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder
punishable under sec. 304. Murder is an aggravated form of
culpable homicide. The existence of one of four conditions turns
culpable homicide into murder while the special exceptions reduce
the offence of murder again to culpable homicide not amounting
to murder."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11221
8 CRA-9273-2019
20. In the case of Anda (supra) in para 10 it has been further
observed that:--
"The third clause views the matter from a general standpoint. It
speaks of an intention to cause bodily injury which is sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The emphasis here is
on the sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. The sufficiency is the high probability of death in the
ordinary way of nature and when this exists and death ensues and
the causing of such injury is intended the offence is murder.
Sometimes the nature of the weapon used, sometimes the part of
the body on which the injury is caused, and sometimes both are
relevant. The determinant factor is the intentional injury which
must be sufficient to cause death, that is to say, the probability of
death is not so high, the offence does not fall within murder but
within culpable homicide not amounting to murder or something
less. The illustration appended to the clause 3rdly reads:
'(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or clubwound sufficient to
cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in
consequence. Here A is guilty of murder, although he may not
have intended to cause Z's death.' The sufficiency of an
intentional injury to cause death in the ordinary way of nature is
the gist of the clause irrespective of an intention to cause death.
Here again, the exceptions may bring down the offence to
culpable homicide not amounting to murder."
21. Testing the findings of the trial Court in the light of
abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that all the injuries
intentionally caused by the accused are cumulatively sufficient to cause the
death in the ordinary course of nature, even if none of those injuries
individually measures upto such sufficiency and the case of the appellant
attracts Clause 3 of Section 300 of the IPC and no exception as provided
under Section 300 of the IPC applies. Accordingly, the conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 of the IPC does not call for interference; hence,
it is affirmed.
22. The appellant has been sentenced only to life imprisonment,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11221
9 CRA-9273-2019
which is the minimum punishment under Section 302 of the IPC and hence
also does not require interference. Hence, the present appeal filed by the
appellant - Bhawar Singh under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is being
devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
23. A copy of this judgment be sent to Jail Authority for information
and necessary action.
24. With the copy of this order, the record of the trial Court be
returned back.
C.C. as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
VS
