Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pooran Lal Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37617
1 CRA-5004-2024
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 11th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5004 of 2024
POORAN LAL CHOUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press I.A.No.585 of
2025, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant. Accordingly, I.A.No.585 of 2025 is dismissed as not pressed.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard
finally.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed by the appellant Pooran Lal Choudhary being
aggrieved of the judgment dated 06/12/2023 passed by the learned XII
Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.04/2022
(State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pooran Lal Choudhary), whereby the appellant
has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37617
2 CRA-5004-2024
and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine amount further RI for one month.
4. It is submitted that as per prosecution story, deceased is Ramnath
Choudhary, Keshav Choudhary (PW-1) is the son and Ram Pyari (PW-2) is
his wife, Bharat (PW-3) and Abhishek (PW-9) are relatives of deceased
Ramnath. Pooran Lal is neighbor of deceased Ramnath. It is also an
admitted fact that a dispute had arisen between Pooran Lal and Ramnath on
account of Ramnath's attempt to construct a tin roof, water of which was
flowing in the area of Pooran Lal. It is also an admitted fact that Manisha had
recorded a case bearing Crime No.256/2018 at Police Station Madhotal on
09/07/2018 on account of a dispute which had taken place with Ramnath and
Keshav. It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of case bearing Crime
No.256/2018, a criminal case RCT No.15030/2018 is pending in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur.
5. As per prosecution case, on 06/10/2021 at about 11:30 pm, when all the
family members had gone to sleep, Keshav and his mother Ram Pyari heard
cries of injured Ramnath. When they reached there they found that Pooran
Lal was hitting his father Ramnath with an iron rod. As a result of which, his
father had sustained injuries on the right hand side of his head and ear. When
Keshav Choudhary (PW-1) and Ram Pyari (PW-2) tried to intervene then
Pooran Lal had pushed them and ran away by threatening them. Incident was
seen by Dujjilal Choudhary and Ravidas Choudhary.
6. It is submitted that neither Dujjilal Choudhary nor Ravidas Choudhary
have been examined in the case. It is also submitted that Keshav (PW-1)
admits in Para-21 that counter cases were registered against the parties. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37617
3 CRA-5004-2024
Para-18 he also admits that Manisha had earlier lodged a case against him.
Thus, it is submitted that its a counter case which was registered between the
parties and thus, it being a case of single injury as pointed out by Dr.
Pradeep Singh Markam (PW-6) and Dr. Alka Jain (PW-7) who stated that
they had found a lacerated wound above right ear measuring 2 cm X 1.5 cm
with swelling and bleeding, it's a case of single injury. As per eye witness,
weapon of offence is a rod whereas police had recovered a hammer and,
therefore firstly, it's a case of acquittal and in alternate, it is pleaded that
since it is a case of single injury, incident took place on 06/10/2021 and
postmortem was conducted on 14/10/2021, at best appellant will be liable to
be convicted under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code.
6. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor supports the impugned
judgement of conviction and prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the
appellant.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, Dr. Alka Jain (PW-7) has clearly stated in her deposition that she had
performed MLC of Ramnath Choudhary S/o Dujjilal Choudhary being
brought by Constable No.1612 Ramkishan Upadhyay. There was one
lacerated wound measuring 2 cm X 1.5 cm with swelling and bleeding over
right ear. She had referred the patient to surgical ward. This witness has
stated that injuries could have been sustained with the help and aid of seized
hammer. She also admits that in her report she had not mentioned as two
injuries were simple in nature or grievous or homicidal. It is stated that she
had sent the patient to the expert doctor. There is no report of expert doctor.
8. It is evident that incident took place on 06/10/2021, deceased died on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37617
4 CRA-5004-2024
14/10/2021, he remained admitted in the hospital for treatment and several
operations etc. were performed on him. When these facts are taken into
consideration then in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Stalin vs. State, (2020) 9 SCC 524, it is evident that incident took place out
of sudden and grave provocation. There was a dispute on account of
Ramnath constructing a tin shed with a slop towards the house of Pooran Lal
causing water to fall in the area of Pooran. This fact is admitted by Keshav
(PW-1), he has admitted that counter cases were filed against each other.
9. Dr. Alka Jain (PW-7) stated that there was only one injury on the head
of the deceased. There ware no other injuries. Thus, considering the fact that
accused inflicted a blow with a weapon like hammer and inflicted injury on
vital part of body i.e. below right ear, it is to be presumed that causing such
bodily injury was likely to cause death, therefore the case would fall under
Section 304 Part -I of IPC and not Section 304 Part -II of IPC as argued by
Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be and is
hereby modified from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-I of IPC and
the appellant is directed to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/-
and in default of payment of fine amount, further RI for one month.
11. In the above terms, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
mc
