Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sheikh Kaleem vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2025

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36892




                                                              1                               CRA-2627-2025
                              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 7 th OF AUGUST, 2025
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2627 of 2025
                                                SHEIKH KALEEM AND OTHERS
                                                           Versus
                                               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Mithilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants.
                                   Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
                                   Sri Basant Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the objector.

                                                                  ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal of I.A. No.11409/2025, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1-Sheikh Kaleem.

Accordingly, I.A. No.11409/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is heard finally.

This appeal is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 25/02/2025 passed in S.T. No.100/2021 by learned Sessions Judge, Burhanpur (MP) whereby appellants have been convicted in the following manners:-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36892

2 CRA-2627-2025 Accused/Appellant No.1-Sheikh Kaleem.

Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
Life R.I for
302/34 I.P.C. Rs.3,000/-
Imprisonment three months
R.I. for 03 R.I. for 20
323/34 I.P.C. Rs.500/-
months days
R.I. for 06 R.I. for 20
325/34 IPC Rs.500/-
months days

Accused/appellant No.2-Sheikh Raju

Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
Life R.I for
302/34 I.P.C. Rs.3,000/-
Imprisonment three months
323/34 (two R.I. for 03 R.I. for 20
I.P.C. Rs.500/-
counts) months days
R.I. for 06 R.I. for 20
325/34 IPC Rs.500/-
months days

Accused/appellant No.3-Sheikh Salman

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36892

3 CRA-2627-2025 Accused/appellant No.4-Sheikh Rehman

Conviction Sentence Imprisonment Section Act Imprisonment Fine in lieu of fine Life R.I for 302/34 I.P.C. Rs.3,000/-

                                                            Imprisonment                     three months
                           323/34 (two                      R.I. for 03                      R.I. for 20
                                            I.P.C.                       Rs.500/-
                           counts)                          months                           days
                                                            R.I. for 06                      R.I. for 20
                           325/34           IPC                          Rs.500/-
                                                            months                           days

2. It is submitted that as far as conviction under Section 302 of IPC qua appellant No.1-Sheikh Kaleem is concerned, it is liable to be converted to Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

3. It is further submitted that while maintaining the conviction under Section 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC, conviction of other accused persons under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of IPC needs to be set aside as the incident, as per the prosecution story, took place at the spur of the moment and as per evidence of Dr. Prateek Choudhary (PW-20) who conducted post-mortem, only one injury was found on the vital part of the body attributed to Sheikh Kaleem, which was the cause of death of Chhota.

4. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn, opposes the prayer and submits that no indulgence can be shown in the matter.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that its a case of free fight. Prosecution case, in short as

narrated in the impugned judgment, is that complainant and accused are

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36892

4 CRA-2627-2025 resident of the same village Ghosiwada Jainabad and are residing in neighbourhood. Injured-Raunak Bi is wife of accused-Sheikh Kaleem and other accused persons are close relatives of Kaleem. Injured-Habeeb, deceased-Chhota, Sikandar and Firoj are members of complainant party and are related to each-other.

6. It is stated that on 28/08/2021 at about 5.30 p.m. Kaleem had brought his wife Raunak Bi who is niece of Habeeb to drop her at the place of her relatives after entering into an altercation with Raunak Bi. Accused- Raju, Rehman and Salman had accompanied Kaleem who had come to drop his wife. Accused party started telling Habeeb that they are leaving his niece Raunak Bi for all times to come. On this, all of a sudden, altercation took place and there was exchange of abuses from both the sides. When Chhota and Sikandar intervened and asked him not to abuse, then Raju, S/o Dhannu had hit Habeeb with a stick on his right hand elbow and Rehman had hit him with an iron pipe on left hand finger. In the meanwhile, Kaleem had hit a stick/lathi from behind on the head of Chhota, as a result of which he sustained injury. It is alleged that Marpeet had taken place from both the sides.

7. It is also matter of record that defence had examined Dr.Aryan Garhwal (DW-1), Medical Officer, District Hospital, Burhanpur who admitted that he had examined Raju, S/o Dhannu, aged about 35 years and found swelling on the left hand side of his chest with scratch marks on his nose. Injury was caused by hard and blunt object. He was given primary treatment contained in Ex.D/6. Similarly, injured Salman, S/o Rehman,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36892

5 CRA-2627-2025 aged about 25 years was also examined. There was a bruise measuring 10 inches on his back. Tenderness was present on the left thigh. The injuries were cased by hard and blunt object. MLC report is Ex.D/7. He had also examined Shahrukh, S/o Rehman, aged about 19 years and found that there was abrasion on his left hand index finger with swelling. There was abrasion and swelling on his left knee, his body was warm, injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. MLC is Ex.D/8. He had also examined Shabbo, W/o Raju, aged about 34 years and found that there was tenderness on the left ankle with swelling, that injury was also termed out to be caused by hard and blunt object and MLC is Ex.D/9. On the same day, this doctor had also examined Rehana, W/o Rehman and noticed tenderness in her chest, contusion on her right index finger and middle finger caused by hard and blunt object vide MLC Ex.D/10. Ex.D/19 is the charge sheet of the counter case.

8. As far as prosecution witnesses are concerned, they have admitted that altercation had taken place all of a sudden because Kaleem wanted to leave his wife to her parental house and when he had asked Habeeb to keep his niece for all times to come, then there was exchange of abuses and also exchange of blows. When this evidence is taken into consideration and read in conjunction with evidence of Dr. Prateek Choudhary (PW-20) who deposed that there were three injuries on the body of the deceased-Chhota, namely, there was a lacerated wound on the rear part of the head of Chhota measuring 2 x 1 inch, swelling was apparent. There was an abrasion on chest measuring 0.5 x 0.5 inch and also there were contusions on the right

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36892

6 CRA-2627-2025 hand and right leg measuring 0.5 x 0.5 inch. In his opinion, Dr. Prateek Choudhary (PW-20) has stated that cause of death was cardiac arrest on account of deep injury caused on head within 12 to 24 hours of post- mortem. He has exhibited post-mortem report Ex.P/34.

9. In cross-examination, Dr. Prateek Choudhary (PW-20) admitted that there can be several reasons for cardiac arrest due to haemorrhage. He deposed that he had mentioned most probable cause of cardiac arrest to be head injury and haemorrhage. He further admitted that the Danda which was sent to him for query report as contained in Ex.P/35, he had not drawn a picture of the said Danda. Thus, it is evident that Dr. Prateek Choudhary (PW-20) had admitted that cause of death was head injury. When these facts are taken into consideration, then apparently incident took place at the spur of moment. There was no pre-meditation or pre-intention. Kaleem had gone to Habeeb to drop his wife as they were not keeping good relations. When he asked Habeeb to keep his niece for all times to come, then altercation had ensued. In a free fight where both the parties sustained injuries as have been proved by Dr. Aryan Garhwal (DW-1), single assault caused by Kaleem became cause of death of Chhota.

10. Thus, when this aspect is examined in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jugut Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 520, then it is evident that assault was not

premeditated but took place in heat of passion due to matrimonial dispute. Act was done with knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. Since ratio of the judgment is applicable to the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36892

7 CRA-2627-2025 facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no hesitation to alter conviction of appellant No.1-Sheikh Kaleem from one under Section 302 of IPC to under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Accordingly, he deserves to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of six months R.I.

11. As far as other accused persons are concerned, there are allegations of causing injuries which, as per Dr.Aryan Garhwal (DW-1), cannot be said to be grievous, therefore, their conviction under Section 302/34 of IPC deserves to be set aside. But, conviction of Sheikh Kaleem and other accused persons under Sections 323/34, 325/34 of IPC is maintained and they deserve to be sentenced as has been awarded by learned trial Court.

12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant No.1-Sheikh Kaleem is modified from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-II of IPC and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of six months. His conviction under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC is hereby maintained and he is sentenced as has been awarded by learned trial Court and his all sentences to run concurrently.

13. As far as appellant No.2-Sheikh Raju, appellant No.3-Sheikh Salman and appellant No.4-Sheikh Rehman are concerned, their conviction under Section 302/34 of IPC is hereby set aside. However, their conviction under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC is hereby maintained and they are sentenced as has been awarded by learned trial Court and their all sentences

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36892

8 CRA-2627-2025 to run concurrently.

14. Case property be disposed of as per the orders of the learned trial Court. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE ts