Madhya Pradesh High Court
Haridas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36456
1 CRA-6079-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6079 of 2023
HARIDAS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Alok Vagrecha - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Heard on I.A.No.9845/2023, which is first application under Section
389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Haridas.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset prays for withdrawal
of the aforesaid application.
3. I.A.No.9845/2023 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is finally
heard.
5. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is filed being
aggrieved of judgment dated 25.2.2023 passed by learned II Additional
Sessions Judge, Harda in Sessions Trial No.21/2020 convicting the appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36456
2 CRA-6079-2023
Haridas for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short "I.P.C") and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody
with effect from 28.11.2019. There are several exaggerations in the
prosecution story. PW.1 Senbai, who is the author of the Dehati Nalishi
(Exhibit P/1) has changed her version from time to time resulting in acquittal
of the other co-accused persons, namely, Hemlata @ Latabai, Vikas Malviya,
Mahesh Chourey and Vishnu Chourey from the charges under Sections 148,
302 or in the alternative under Sections 302/149 & 323 or in the alternative
under Sections 323/149 & 294 of the I.P.C. Even the wife of Haridas,
namely, Hemlata sustained injuries on her head as proved by DW.1
Dr.J.K.Chourey, who had examined her at Community Health Centre-
Handiya on 28.11.2019. DW.1 Dr.J.K.Chourey had also found injuries on
the body of Haridas, Hemlata and Vikas. It is, therefore, submitted by
learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case of self-defence and in the
light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Swarup versus State of
Madhya Pradesh (1992) 2 SCC 406, since the incident took place at the spur
of moment and the plea of self-defence is available, the conviction of the
appellant Haridas is required to be set aside. In the alternative, it is prayed
that since the incident admittedly took place at the spur of moment, there was
no premeditation nor there was any preplanning and on a water dispute in an
altercation between two parties, single injury was caused as is admitted by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36456
3 CRA-6079-2023
the postmortem doctor Shri Tarun Choudhary (PW.12), at best, the present
will be a case under Section 304 of the I.P.C.
7. Learned Government Advocate for the State submits that firstly, DW.1
Dr.J.K.Chourey himself states that the injuries as were sustained by Hemlata,
Vikas and Haridas could have been caused on account of their fall while
running away from the place of the incident. Secondly, there is no report of
the counter case at the behest of Haridas & Company. Thirdly, though Shri
Alok Vagrecha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused
party had gone to the police station for lodging of the report but it was not
lodged, it is pointed out by learned Government Advocate for the State that
no private complaint was filed nor any complaint was lodged to the
Superintendent of Police saying that the counter report was not registered by
the police in an arbitrary or illegal manner. Learned Government Advocate
supports the impugned judgment of conviction and prays for dismissal of the
present appeal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
9. PW.1 Senbai is the author of Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/1). She states that
at about 6:00 PM, she herself, her son Sunil, her daughter Versha and her
younger sister Rashi were present at home. The accused Vishnu brought with
a mobile phone and asked for Sunil. When she informed that Sunil was
watching television, the accused Vishnu informed her that Satyanarayan is
calling and abusing Sunil. When Sunil came out to receive the phone call, he
accused Haridas and his son Vikas had thrown Sunil in a Nali and thereafter
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36456
4 CRA-6079-2023
they had beaten Sunil with a Stick. The presence of Latabai was also shown
saying that she had hit Senbai on her head, which was required to be stitched.
Her allegation is that Haridas had hit Sunil with a Tangi, as a result of which,
the injuries were caused to the neck and back of Sunil.
10. PW.1 Senbai in Paragraph No.9 of her cross-examination admits that
on the date of the incident, it was Amavasya. It was a dark night and after
half an hour of the sun set, the incident took place. A suggestion has been
given to this witness that Sunil is married to Hirabai and Hirabai is mentally
disturbed but it is admitted that Hirabai was not available at the place of the
incident, therefore, the attempt of the defence to shift the burden on Hirabai
taking advantage of her mental illness, is not made out.
11. PW.2 Subhash Chourey states that when he reached the place of the
incident, he saw that six accused persons were beating Sunil. Haridas was
armed with an Axe and he had hit twice or thrice on the neck of Sunil. The
other accused persons were armed with Danda and Lathi. A suggestion has
been given to this witness that he had not seen the incident but he has denied
all such suggestions. He admits that the incident took place at the spur of
moment.
12. PW.12 Dr.Tarun Choudhary admits that it was a case of single injury.
Though it is sought to be made out through DW.2 Hitesh Malviya that he
wanted to take blame as he was juvenile but that theory of taking blame is
not made out.
13. It is evident that the incident took place at the spur of moment. There
was a dispute with regard to sharing of water for irrigation purposes. PW.12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36456
5 CRA-6079-2023
Dr.Tarun Choudhary admits that there was a single injury on the neck of
Sunil, which became the cause of his death. When all these facts are
examined in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Stalin versus
State Represented By The Inspector of Police Stalin (2020) 9SCC 524,
Chaitu & Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 11 SCC
218, Subramani @ Jeeva Alias Kullajeeva versus Station House Officer,
Police Station, Odiyansalai (2011) 14 SCC 454 then a plea of self-defence is
not made out as held by the Apex Court in Ex.Ct.Mahadev versus Director
General, Border Security Force & Others (2022) 8 SCC 502 .
14. DW.1 Dr.J.K.Chourey admits that the injuries sustained by the accused
party could have been caused due to fall when a person after an altercation
decides to run away from the place of the incident, therefore, since the
doctrine of private defence is not made out but it is evident from the
testimony of the eye-witnesses and the factual backdrop available on record
that the incident took place at the spur of moment, we deem it proper to hold
that the appellant Haridas had an intention to cause injury but had no
knowledge that the injury was so grievous to cause death of Sunil. Hence,
the conviction of the appellant Haridas is altered from one under Section 302
to Section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C. The appellant Haridas is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, he shall undergo additional simple imprisonment
for three months.
15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part.
16. Let record of the Trial Court be sent back.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36456
6 CRA-6079-2023
17. The case property be disposed of as per the directions of the Trial
Court.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
