Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prabhudayal @ Dulichandra Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36583
1 CRA-9819-2024
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 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9819 of 2024
PRABHUDAYAL @ DULICHANDRA SAKET AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate for the State.
JUDGEMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate for the State
adopts previous objections filed for other co-accused.
2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Patel submits that this case can be heard finally and
offence will be converted from one under Section 302 to 304 Part-II of IPC.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.2412/2025, which is an application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants is dismissed as not pressed and
with the consent of the parties, this appeal is heard finally.
4. This appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment
dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Amarpatan, District Satna in S.T. No.20/2022 whereby the trial Court
convicted the appellant No.1 Prabhudaya @ Dulichandra Saket s/o Sarman
Saket, under Section 302 IPC besides 324 IPC, with the following
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36583
2 CRA-9819-2024
sentences.
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
deposited in lieu of fine
324 IPC Imprisonment for Rs.1,000/- R.I. for thirty
one year days
302 IPC Life Rs.1,000/- R.I. for thirty
imprisonment days
And appellant No.2 Sunita @ Pappi Saket has been convicted under Sections
324 and 302 of IPC with the following sentences.
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
deposited in lieu of fine
324 IPC Imprisonment for Rs.1,000/- R.I. for thirty
one year days
302 IPC Life Rs.1,000/- R.I. for thirty
imprisonment days
5. Firstly, it is submitted that allegation is on Prabhudayal of causing injury
with a lathi, as is made out by PW-2, Shanti Saket. There is no allegation on
appellant No.2 Sunita @ Pappi Saket of causing any injury to the deceased
with a lathi. Allegation on Sunita is of exhortation.
6 . It is submitted that it is beyond comprehension that learned Second
Additional Session Judge, Amarpatan, District Satna has not applied himself
to the fact situation and recorded conviction of Sunita @ Pappi also under
Section 302 IPC and at best, it could have been 302/34 IPC.
7. Thus, it is prayed that conviction of appellant No.2 Sunita @ Pappi Saket
be set aside under Section 302 IPC and it can be maintained under Section
324 IPC whereas that of appellant No.1 Prabhudayal @ Dulichandra Saket is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36583
3 CRA-9819-2024
required to be altered from one under Section 302 IPC to 304 Part-II IPC.
8. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate for the State
opposes the prayer and submits that PW-7, Dr. Mohd. Rizwan Khan,
conducted postmortem and found that there were injuries on the body of the
deceased and therefore, it is a fit case to maintain conviction under Section
302 IPC.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record. PW-2, Shanti Saket, is the author of Dehati Nalishi . She has stated
that on 18.12.2021 it was a day of full moon. At about 3 p.m., she was
depositing firewood on the northern medh of her house. On the other side of
the medh is the field of the accused persons, who are known to her and are
Devar and Devrani in relationship. Deceased Rajbhan was her husband.
When she was collecting wood, Pappi came and started throwing wood and
abusing her, then Rajbhan stopped her from abusing, when Prabhudayal
came with a 'danda' and at the instance of Pappi who had exhorted,
Prabhudayal, had hit a lathi, on the head of her husband Rajbhan, as a result
of which he had fallen down. It is alleged that when Shanti ran to save her
husband, then she too was hit by lathi. Thereafter, they had called Dial 100
and called the police when it was informed that her husband was dead.
10. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that at the time of the
incident except she herself, her son, neighbourer Ramrati and Rajbhan,
nobody else was present. She also stated that when Shiv Prasad Tiwari
reached the spot then accused were not present, they had ran away. She also
stated that if in her case diary statements, Ex.D-3, it is mentioned that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36583
4 CRA-9819-2024
Prabhudayal was armed with a Lathi and an Axe, then it is incorrect because
she had never mentioned to police that Prabhudayal was armed with an axe.
She has admitted that there was a land dispute between the two parties and
the place of the incident is a government land. In regard to that government
land also there is a dispute between the complainant and the appellant parties
for last two-three years. Though, she has denied that on account of fall of
branches of eucalyptus tree she sustained injuries, but PW-11, Dr. Sushil
Gupta, who had conducted MLC on the body of Shanti Saket, stated that
there were two injuries, namely, swelling on the right temporal region and
bleeding from the said right temporal region. In cross-examination, he
admitted that injury No.1 & 2 were on the same part. He has also admitted
that if any branch of a tree falls on the head of the injured then the injuries
which were found on the body of Shanti Saket could have been caused. It has
also come on record that she was subjected to CT-Scan and her CT-Scan
report was normal.
11. As far as PW-7, Dr. Mohd. Rizwan Khan, is concerned, in cross-
examination, Mohammad Rizwan Khan has admitted that except for one
head injury found on the body of the deceased all other parts were normal.
Then, he stated that there was diffuse swelling present on the nose. He
further clarified that except for the head injury there were no injury marks on
any other part of the body. He has also stated that if injured would have been
subjected to immediate treatment, then injured could have been saved. He
has further stated that if a person is cutting branches of a tree and that branch
falls on his head, then injuries as were sustained by Rajbhan can be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36583
5 CRA-9819-2024
contacted.
12. In view of such evidence of PW-7 and evidence of PW-4, Smt.
Ramrati Saket who has been termed to be an eye witness by Shanti Saket,
who has stated in cross-examination that when incident took place than she
was at her home and had not gone to the place of the incident nor she had
intervened in the incident. She has admitted that she had seen the incident
from her house and further admitted that her house is on a village road which
is used by the villagers. She further admitted, in para 9, that when she had
gone to the house of Rajbhan that time Rajbhan was alive.
13. PW-5 Narayan Saket, is son of Shanti Saket, he too has admitted that at
the time of the incident he was inside his house, dispute was going on behind
the house of his father. He has admitted that Prabhudayal had given a single
lathi blow on his father's head. In cross-examination, he admits that his
house and house of his parents are separate, he was present in his house, his
wife was in her parental house. He further admits that when he had reached
the spot his father had already fallen, then admits that when he had reached
the spot Mr. Tiwari had already reached the spot.
14. Thus, when evidence of PW-2, Shanti Saket, is taken into consideration
with that of Narayan Saket, Shanti Saket admitted that Shri Tiwari had
reached the place of the incidence later on and by that time accused had
already ran away, reveals that even PW-5 Narayan had reached the spot after
incident had already taken place, therefore, the only credible evidence on
record is that of Shanti Saket, who has admitted that Prabhudayal was armed
with a Lathi and he had hit a Lathi on the head of her husband. This fact
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36583
6 CRA-9819-2024
being further corroborated by PW-7, Dr. Mohd. Rizwan Khan, it becomes a
case of single injury.
15. In the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Jugut Ram Vs. State
of Chhatisgarh, 2020(9) SCC 520 and taking into consideration the evidence
of PW-7 Mohd. Rizwan Khan that if proper and timely treatment would have
been given to the injured then his life could have been saved, coupled with
the fact that there was only single injury which was caused when an
altercation took place on account of old land dispute between the parties,
who are related to each other, we are of the opinion that conviction of
appellant No.1 Prabhudayal @ Dulichandra Saket under Section 302 cannot
be sustained and it needs to be and is altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC. He is
accordingly, directed to undergo sentence for 7 years, R.I. with fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of 3 months R.I. However, his conviction
under Section 324 IPC is maintained and there will be no change in the
sentence and fine awarded for offence under Section 324 IPC. Both the
sentences to run concurrently.
1 6 . As far as, co-accused Sunita @ Pappi is concerned, there are no
ingredients of Section 300 made out to uphold her conviction under Section
302 or 302/34 IPC and, accordingly, conviction of appellant No.2 under
Section 302 is set aside. However, her conviction under Section 324 IPC is
maintained and there will be no change in the sentence and fine awarded for
offence under Section 324 IPC.
17. In above terms, appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.
18. Registry is directed to bring to the notice of the concerned Sessions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36583
7 CRA-9819-2024
Judge that he is required to upgrade his legal knowledge, inasmuch as
recording of conviction of Sunita @ Pappi Saket only under Section 302
simpliciter when she was charged under Section 302/34, shows gross
negligence on his part or in the alternative lack of legal knowledge, for
which he may be deputed to the Judicial Academy for specialized training.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MTK
