Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Kumar Mehra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19397
1 CRA-953-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 953 of 2021
MAHESH KUMAR MEHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard
finally.
This appeal is filed on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 22/01/2021 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Gadarwara, Distt. Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.333/2015 whereby
appellant No.1-Mahesh Kumar Mehra has been convicted under Section 302
of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine
of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of R.I. for three months. Appellant
No.1-Mahesh Kumar Mehra has been further convicted under Section 323 of
IPC on two counts and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19397
2 CRA-953-2021
along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of one month each.
Similarly, appellant No.2-Smt. Halki Bai has been convicted under Section
302/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along
with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of R.I. for three months.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are
innocent. Halki Bi has been falsely implicated. There is no overt-act on the
part of Halki Bai. It is further submitted that complainant- Ramesh has
admitted that appellant No.1-Mahesh is related to him and the dispute
occurred all of a sudden on account of fall of Munga leaves in the courtyard
of the appellants' party. It is submitted that since the incident occurred
without any premeditation in a sudden fight, therefore, as far as appellant
No.1-Mahesh Kumar Mehra is concerned, his conviction is liable to be
converted into one under Section 304 of IPC and as far as appellant No.2-
Smt. Halki Bai is concerned, since there is no evidence to substantiate that
Halki Bai had caught hold of deceased-Rekhabai, as a result of which
facilitating hitting of a lathi at a spur of moment, therefore, Halki Bai has
case for acquittal.
3. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor, supports the
impugned judgment. However, he admits that no overtact has been ascribed
to Halki Bai. Four witnesses have been examined, but, their evidence is
sketchy, yet he supports the impugned judgment of conviction and submits
that no interference is called for.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is admitted that Ramesh Mehra (PW-4), husband of deceased -Reva
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19397
3 CRA-953-2021
alias Rekhabai was a Kotwar. He admitted that he was plucking
Munga beans when certain leaves had fallen down in the courtyard of
Mahesh. Mahesh and his wife Halki Bai started abusing and ran to beat
him when his wife Reva alias Rekhabai said that she will clean the leaves
which had fallen in the courtyard. On this, accused persons came on the
road in front of their house when Mahesh wielding a lathi had hit deceased-
Reva alias Rekhabai. Prosecution has tried to establish guilt of Halki Bai
by saying that she caught hold of deceased-Reva alias Rekhabai when
Mahesh had assaulted her with a lathi. Ramesh Mehra (PW-4) admitted in
para-9 of his testimony that he, Golu, who is P.W.-5, and Himmu had
reached at the place of the incident together.
5. Golu Mehra (PW-5) admits that when he had reached at the place of
the incident, at that time his mother was lying on the ground. Similar
statement has been given by Umesh Mehra (PW-6) that means neither
Umesh Mehra (PW-6) nor Golu Mehra (PW-5) or Ramesh Mehra (PW-4)
had seen Halki Bai caught holding Rekhabai. They all admit in their
testimony that when they reached the spot, they had seen Rekhabai lying on
the ground.
6. In the FIR, it is mentioned that when assailants had hit deceased-
Reva alias Rekhabai with a lathi, she had fallen down on the ground. When
these facts are taken into consideration, then it appears that as far as
appellant No.2-Halki Bai is concerned, its a case of over implication.
7. As far as appellant No.1-Mahesh Kumar Mehra is concerned, Dr.
Shipra Kaurav who had conducted post-mortem on Rekhabai and MLC on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19397
4 CRA-953-2021
the body of two injured persons namely Ramesh and Golu, deposed that the
injuries found on the body of Ramesh and Golu were simple in nature. She
further deposed that there was a lacerated wound measuring 1/2' x 1/5' on the
left ear caused by hard and blunt object and there was another lacerated
wound measuring 1/2' x 12' x 1/3' on the lower side of left year which was
round in nature and which caused fracture in the mastoid bone. Fracture
was of depressed nature. Deceased died because of bleeding, while she was
unconscious.
8. Thus, from the prosecution story, it is evident that firstly incident
took place at the spur of moment. Secondly, incident did not occur either in
the house of the appellants or in the house of the complainant party. As has
been admitted by Ramesh Mehra (PW-4), Golu Mehra (PW-5) and Umesh
Mehra (PW-6), incident took place on the road. Hence, it cannot be said
that accused persons were aggressors or took any undue advantage of their
position or location. Its a case of sudden fight and without any
premeditation, therefore, it will fall under Exception-4 to Section 300 of IPC
which says that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner. This fact is corroborated from the evidence of Umesh
Mehra (PW-6) who admits that Mahesh had hit one lathi on the head of the
deceased which caused injuries near the left ear. It is not the prosecution
case that there was previous enmity and parties had any score to settle.
9. Even otherwise, initiation of fight was on account of fall of Munga
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19397
5 CRA-953-2021
leaves in the courtyard of the appellants when victim party was plucking the
Munga beans, therefore, it is evident that despite objections raised by the
appellants' party, the act of the complainant party plucking the Munga beans
causing annoyance to the accused party and then fight suddenly taking place,
will be covered under Exception-4 of Section 300 of IPC, hence, conviction
under Section 302/34 cannot be sustained. Thus, conviction of appellant
No.2-Smt. Halki Bai being not corroborated with the evidence of any eye
witness, is hereby set aside and she is acquitted from the charge under
Section 302/34 of IPC. Appellant No.2-Smt. Halki Bai is on bail, her bail
bonds are hereby discharged.
10. As far as appellant No.1-Mahesh Kumar Mehra is concerned, his
conviction is converted from one under Section 302 of IPC to under Section
304 Part-I of IPC and he is sentenced to ten years of RI. However, his
conviction under Section 323 on two counts is maintained as it is.
11. In above terms, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and disposed
of.
12. Case property be disposed of in terms of the orders of learned trial
Court.
Record of the trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ts
