Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 30th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2054 of 2021
AMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Saxena- learned Counsel for appellant.
Shri A. K. Nirankari- learned Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Hirdesh
Today, case is listed on I.A. No.8781 of 2025, second application under
Section 389 of CrPC for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail, moved on
behalf of sole appellant- Amar Singh. First application (IA No. 13158/2023) was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16-08-2023.
With the content of both the parties, matter is heard finally on merits.
Accordingly, I.A. No.8781 of 2025 stands closed.
(2) The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been filed by
appellant- Amar Singh assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 08-02-2021 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar in
Sessions Case No. 204 of 2016, whereby appellant has been convicted under
Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.
2,000/- with default stipulation.
(3) The case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Parobai (PW-3) gave an
information at PS Ishagarh, District Ashok Nagar alleging that on 06-09-2016, she
was coming to her house along-with her son Narayan carrying fodder on a bullock
cart. On the way, near chabutara of Patwari, accused Amar Singh Adiwasi was
sitting. When they reached near him, accused Amar Singh Adiwasi, after hearing
sound of cart, came out and started arguing with her son Narayan. Thereafter,
Amar Singh with intention to kill him inflicted two lathi blows on the head of her
son Narayan due to which, he fell down, became unconscious and blood started
oozing. Amar Singh inflicted two-three lathi blows on Amar Singh which hit his
waist, shoulder and other parts of body. On her shouting, appellant ran away.
Thereafter, her elder son- Kammodi (PW1), her husband Toran (PW-4) with the
help of villager Chandrabhan (PW-2) took her son Narayan in an unconscious
state to Hospital. On the basis of information given by complainant, a Dehati
Nalishi was registered at Police Station vide Crime No.0 of 2016 for offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC. On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, FIR at Crime
No.352 of 2016 for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC was registered
against accused Amar Singh. Matter was investigated. During investigation,
because of death of Narayan (deceased), offence under Section 302 of IPC was
enhanced. Spot map was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded,
accused was arrested and relevant seizure was made. After completion of
investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed before the competent
Court on 26-05-2016 from where, the case was committed to the Sessions Court.
(4) Charges were framed and read over to accused. Appellant abjured his guilt
and pleaded complete innocence. Statement of accused was recorded under
Section 313 of CrPC.
(5) Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 18 witnesses
whereas appellant, in order to lead his evidence, did not examine a single witness
in his defence.
(6) After conclusion of trial, the Trial Court on the basis of prosecution evidence
as well as exhibited material/documents available on record, found the appellant
guilty and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as stated in Para 2 of this
judgment.
(7) It is contended on behalf of appellant that from the ocular evidence of
Kammodi (PW-1), Chandrabhan (PW-2), Toran (PW-4) and Bhagirath (PW-6), it
shows that statements of these witnesses are contradictory to one another and it
cannot be ascertained that who had actually reached place of occurrence first after
the incident and who had actually seen the incident. None of independent witness
has been examined by the prosecution even though 20 to 25 persons were
assembled at spot. Dr. Sandeep Jain (PW-15), who had conducted autopsy of
deceased, did not state that injury sustained by deceased was sufficient to cause
his death. It is further contended that the deceased was habitual drunkard and on
the alleged incident, both appellant and the deceased were in drunken state and
quarrelling with each other and in a heat of passion as well as in hot exchange of
words, the alleged incident took place. At the spur of moment, without any-
meditation and pre-plan, the appellant had inflicted a lathi blow, which
unfortunately resulted into death of deceased and there was no intention of
appellant to commit murder of deceased. Therefore, offence against appellant is
not proved under Section 302 of IPC. At the most, offence would fall under
Section 304 Part II of IPC. On these grounds, it is prayed that impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court deserves to be
set aside by allowing the instant appeal.
(8) On the other hand, learned Counsel for State supported the impugned
judgment and submitted that on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record, prosecution has produced its evidence and has proven the
charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant has not
produced any evidence in his defence. The findings arrived at by learned Trial
Court do not require any interference by this Court. No leniency can be adopted in
favour of appellant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
(9) Heard counsel for parties at length and perused the record.
(10) The first question for determination of instant appeal is whether death of
deceased was homicidal in nature or not ?
(11) Dr. Pankaj Singh (PW-5) in his evidence deposed that on 06-09-2016, he
was posted as Medical Officer in Community Health Centre, Ishagarh and upon
conduction of primary medico-legal examination, he found following injuries on
the body of Narayan (since deceased) vide MLC Ex.P6:-
''Injury No.1- A lacerated wound on the back of head and left
side with a size of 5 cm x 0.5 cm, up-to the depth of bone from which
blood was oozing.
Injury No.2- Swelling on the back of head and right side along
with a lacerated wound with a size of 6cm x 0.5 cm upto the depth of
bone.
Injury No.3- Swelling on the left side of waist with a size of 6
cm x 4 cm.
Injury No.4- Bleeding was coming from left ear.
According to opinion of Dr. Pankaj Singh, all the injuries are possible from
a hard and blunt object and all were fresh. Looking to the injuries, he had referred
Narayan to District Hospital, Ashok Nagar.
(12) Dr. Sandeep Jain (PW-15) in his evidence deposed that on 07-09-2016, he
was posted as Medical Officer, District Hospital Ashok Nagar. On that day, police
brought deceased Narayan Singh for postmortem examination. Upon postmortem
examination, vide Ex.P18, he found the following external injuries on the person
of deceased Narayan Singh:-
'' A lacerated wound 8 cm x 6 cm was present in front of left ear.
Blood was oozing from it. There was swelling on both upper and lower
eyelids. There was more swelling on right of forehead which was 3cm x 2
cm. There was 5 cm long lacerated wound on right parietal and occipital
region of the head. There was swelling on the left temporal region of head
where there was a fracture of temporal bone. There was a blood clot
accumulated there which was 3 cm x 2 cm on the right side.''
Upon internal examination, Dr. Jain had given the following opinion:-
''General condition of deceased was normal. Blood clots were found
in the skull and brain and brain was found to be bruised. Both longs were
pale, the trachea and bronchi contained blood and left side of chest cavity
was empty.''
As per opinion of Dr. Jain, the cause of death of deceased is head injury
leading to haemorrhage and shock.
(13) From the medical evidence as aforesaid, it transpired that the death of
deceased was homicidal in nature.
(14) The next question for determination is whether appellant had inflicted lathi
blow on the head of deceased or not and this Court thinks it apposite to go
through the evidence of following material witnesses.
(15) Kammodi (PW-1), who is brother of deceased Narayan in his examination-
in-chief deposed that when he reached the spot, he found that accused Amar Singh
beat his brother Narayan Singh with lathi due to which, his head got fractured.
Accused had hit him two lathi blows due to which, his brother Narayan Singh got
injured on his head and also sustained injuries on his body and waist. This witness
in Para 4 of his cross-examination admitted that his brother was habitual drunkard
and at the time of incident, his brother Narayan and appellant were in drunken
state. Further, this witness in Para 5 of his cross-examination admitted that he did
not see the incident of causing injury by appellant to his brother Narayan and
when he reached the spot, his mother told him that accused Amar fled away after
inflicting injury to his brother Narayan.
(16) Chandrabhan (PW-2), who is cousin of deceased, in Para 1 of his
examination-in-chief deposed that on hearing scream of mother of deceased, when
he reached the chabutara of Patwari, he found that quarrel between appellant
Amar Singh and deceased Narayan Singh was going on. Toran Singh, father of
deceased Narayan was with him. Accused Amar Singh gave lathi blow to Narayan
Singh on the head and fled away. This witness further in Para 4 of his cross-
examination deposed that they had seen the accused hitting Narayan with lathi, by
the time, they reached, accused fled from the place of incident and further
admitted that when they reached near the deceased, accused was not there.
(17) Parao Bai (PW-3), who is mother of deceased, in Para 1 of her examination-
in-chief deposed that appellant had inflicted two lathi blows on the head of her son
Amar Singh, as a result of which, blood started oozing and also inflicted lathi
blows twice on his waist due to which, her son Amar Singh fell down. Accused
Amar Singh inflicted lathi blow with intention of killing him. Chandrabhan and
Toran came on spot and then took her son Amar Singh to Government Hospital,
Ishagarh. This witness in Para 2 of her cross-examination deposed that when she
was coming to her house with fodder, appellant and her son Narayan were
quarrelling with each other. She had gone out without looking at them. She came
back after hearing the shouts and screams on the way. When she reached the spot,
Kammod, Chandrabhan and Toran were already present there.
(18) Toran (PW-4), who is father of deceased, in Para 1 of his examination-in-
chief deposed that on hearing screams of his wife Parobai, he reached the
Chabutara of Patwari and saw that Amar Singh inflicted two lathi blows on his
son Narayan Singh and on seeing him, accused Amar Singh fled away. He saw the
injury on the head of his son Narayan Singh. This witness further in Para 2 of his
cross-examination admitted that due to hot exchange of words, quarrel took place
between appellant and his son Narayan Singh. Further, this witness in Para 4 of his
cross-examination deposed that when he reached the spot, at that time, near about
20-25 people were assembled there.
(19) Bhagirath (PW-6) in his evidence deposed that on the date of incident, he
had not gone for labour work because of suffering from fever. Around 06:00 in the
evening, Narayan Singh and Amar Singh both were fighting with each other in
front of Chabutara of Patwari. Appellant Amar Singh inflicted Narayan Singh
with a lathi and ran way. Blood was oozing from the head of Narayan Singh, then
Devi Lal and he ran after Amar Singh upto the mines. Then he went ahead and
they could not see accused Amar Singh thereafter they came back. This witness
further in Para 3 in his cross-examination deposed that he could not know when
brother, father and mother of deceased Narayan came on spot. This witness further
in Para 4 of his cross-examination admitted that both appellant and deceased were
in drunken state and he could not see that appellant had inflicted lathi blow to
deceased Narayan Singh.
(20) Looking to the ocular evidence of above witnesses, although it appears that
there are some contradictions and omissions in their statements to the effect that
who had first actually reached the spot after the incident and who had actually
witnessed to the incident and whether both appellant Amar Singh and deceased
Narayan were in drunken state at the the time of incident, but these contradictions
and omissions are not substantially affected the credibility of these witnesses. On
perusal of evidence of Paro Bai (PW-1) and other evidence available on record, it
appears that appellant fled away after inflicting lathi blow on the head of deceased
Narayan Singh, which resulted into death.
(21) The next question for determination is whether appellant had inflicted lathi
blow with intention of causing death of deceased or not ?
(22) The provision has been enshrined under Section 304 of IPC regarding
punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Regarding awarding
appropriate sentence to the accused, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of
Gummukh Singh vs. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635 after considering
catena of decisions of Jagrup Singh vs. State of Haryana (1981) 3 SCC 616,
Gurmail Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 185, Kulwant Rai
vs. State of Punjab (1981) 4 SCC 245, Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983) 2
SCC 342, Hem Raj vs. State (Delhi Administration), [1990] Supp. SCC 291,
Abani K. Debnath and Another vs. State of Tripura (2005) 13 SCC 422 and
Pappu vs. State of MP (2006) 7 SCC 391, has observed that when an incident is
taken place at the spur of moment, accused inflicted a single blow and is not
involved in any overt act, there is no intention or premeditation in the mind of
accused to inflict such injury to deceased as was likely to cause death in ordinary
course of nature, then conviction of the accused cannot be sustained under Section
302 of IPC and accused ought to be convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
(23) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh (supra) in detail
has discussed the following relevant factors, which are required to be taken into
consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to accused.
''23. These are some factors which are required to be
taken into consideration before awarding appropriate
sentence to the accused. These factors are only
illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case
has to be seen from its special perspective. The relevant
factors are as under:
a) Motive or previous enmity;
b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of
the moment;
c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while
inflicting the blow or injury;
d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the
victim died after several days;
e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;
f) The age and general health condition of the accused;
g) Whether the injury was caused without pre-
meditation in a sudden fight;
h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the
injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted;
i) The criminal background and adverse history of the
accused;
j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death
was because of shock;
k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the
accused;
l) Incident occurred within the family members or close
relations;
m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the
incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the
deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that
he/she gets proper medical treatment?
These are some of the factors which can be taken into
consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to
the accused.''
(24) Looking to the factual scenario of the case at hand and considering the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above-cited case of Gurmukh Singh
(supra), the evidence available on record indicates that the alleged incident took
place at the spur of moment in a heat of passion and hot exchange of words
between appellant and deceased. There was no premeditation or pre-plan of the
appellant and there was no intention of appellant to cause death or causing
particular injury, which has proved fatal as per medical evidence. Therefore, the
offence committed by appellant falls within the ambit of Section 304 of Part II of
IPC. This Court instead of convicting appellant under Section 302 of IPC, finds it
apposite to convict him under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentence him to
seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
(25) So far as the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that appellant
has already undergone more than eight years of jail incarceration is concerned,
regarding the quantum of jail sentence, it would be sufficient to impose sentence
on the accused as already undergone by him by maintaining the fine amount as
already awarded by trial Court.
(26) Resultantly, the instant criminal appeal so far as it relates to appellant Amar
Singh stands allowed in part by setting aside the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 08-02-2021 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge,
Ashok Nagar in Sessions Case No.204 of 2016 for commission of offence under
Section 302 of IPC and instead, appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II of
IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. more than eight
years. The fine amount as awarded by Trial Court stands maintained. In default of
payment of fine amount, the appellant shall have to undergo further six months'
rigorous imprisonment. Appellant is reported to be in jail. On verification by the
jail authority concerned, the appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required
in any other offence.
(27) A copy of this judgment along with record be sent to concerned Trial Court,
so also a copy of this judgment be forwarded to jail authority concerned for
information and compliance.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
