Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chaturbhuj Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38109
1 CRA-11632-2024
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 13th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11632 of 2024
CHATURBHUJ GUPTA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kapil Pathak,
Advocate for appellants.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
At the outset, learned counsel for appellants does not want to press
I.A.No.30671/2024, which is first application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the appellant Chaturbhuj Gupta S/o Late Banshgopal Gupta.
He prays for final hearing of this appeal at motion stage.
Accordingly, I.A.No.30671/2024, is dismissed as not pressed.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
This appeal under Section 415 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 26.09.2024, passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Teonthar, District Rewa (M.P.), in
S.T.No.128/2021, whereby, appellant No.1-Chaturbhuj has been convicted
for offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC for which he is sentenced
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38109
2 CRA-11632-2024
to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-and appellants No. 2 & 3 Sanjay
Kumar Gupta and Smt. Asha Gupta, respectively, have been convicted for
offence under Section 323 of IPC for which they are sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 01 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulations,
respectively.
2. Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate for appellants
submits that it is a case of family dispute where appellant No.1-Chaturbhuj
wanted to give larger share to his elder son Sanjay Gupta, which enraged the
younger son i.e. deceased Sheshmani @ Ajay Gupta, as a result of which an
altercation took place and Chaturbhuj Gupta lifted an iron pipe which was
lying at the place of the incident and given a single blow to Sheshmani @
Ajay Gupta, because Sheshmani @ Ajay Gupta was hurling choicest of
abuses on his father. Thus, it is submitted that it's a case of sudden
provocation without taking any undue advantage . Pipe which was lying at
the place of the incident was used to stop Sheshmani @ Ajay Gupta from
hurling abuses on his father and other family members. Thus, case will fall
under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.
3. It is also submitted that as far as other appellants, namely, Sanjay
Kumar Gupta and Smt. Asha Gupta are concerned, they have been convicted
under Section 323 of IPC. It is submitted that Sanjay Gupta was in custody
for about four and a half months as can be seen from the certificate issued
under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., whereas, Smt. Asha Gupta remained in
custody for about four months and, therefore, their period of suspension be
declared to be undergone after increasing some fine amount.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38109
3 CRA-11632-2024
4. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State
opposes the prayer and submits that though single blow theory is correct, but
that single blow was on vital part of the body of the deceased i.e. Sheshmani
@ Ajay Gupta and, therefore, no indulgence be shown in the matter of
alteration of conviction and reduction in sentence.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, prosecution case in short is that Vijay Kumar Gupta had lodged a
report on 24.7.2021 at Police Station Jawa, that they are five brothers.
Property has yet not been partitioned amongst them. Their father Chaturbhuj
Gupta wishes to give more share to one of their brothers Sanjay Gupta out of
the ancestral property as compared to four other sons. Dispute on this
aspect was going on for several days and even a case was pending in the
Court at Teonthar.
6. On 23.7.2021, it is alleged that at about 06:00 p.m., a dispute had
arisen between daughter of this informant Vijay and delinquent boy when
Chaturbhuj Gupta, Sanjay Gupta and Asha Gupta started abusing Sheshmani
@ Ajay Gupta. When Sheshmani @ Ajay Gupta stopped them from
abusing, then Chaturbhuj stated that Ajay was causing discord for the land
and, thereafter, had picked up an iron rod which was lying on the spot and
had hit Sheshmani @ Ajay Gupta on the rear side of his head, as a result of
which, Sheshmani @ Ajay Gupta bleeding when Sanjay Gupta, his wife
Asha Gupta and delinquent started beating Ajay Gupta with kicks and fists.
He was pushed down the staircase. Thereafter, all the four accused persons
ran away. It has also come on record that Sheshmani @ Ajay Gupta was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38109
4 CRA-11632-2024
taken for treatment to hospital at Jawa where doctor had referred him to
Rewa, but for their convenience, they were taking Sheshmani @ Ajay Gupta
to Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, but he died on the way. Marg Intimation was
registered and, thereafter, case Crime No.190/2021 was registered at Police
Station Jawa under Sections 294, 323 & 302/34 of IPC. It is evident that
investigation was carried out, spot map, memorandum etc., were prepared.
On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Matter was
committed to the Sessions Court where the trial was conducted and
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed.
7. Dr. Agnivesh Kumar Mishra (PW/2), stated that on 24.7.2021, he
was working at Community Health Centre Jawa as Medical Officer. At
about 10:30 hours Constable 574, Rakesh Bhadoria, had brought Sheshmani
@ Ajay Gupta S/o Chaturbhuj Gupta, aged about 45 years for postmortem.
Postmortem was conducted by a team of doctors consisting of Dr. Agnivesh
Kumar Mishra (PW/2) and Dr. N.K. Pandey. On postmortem, it was found
that on the occipital area, where was a lacerated wound measuring 5 cm x 1
cm on the midline in a vertical position. Doctors opined that on account of
the head injury patient had gone into coma and died within 24 hours before
the postmortem.
8. Vijay Kumar Gupta (PW/3), is the author of the FIR. This witness
proved Marg Intimation (Ex.P/7). FIR (Ex.P/8), Safina Form (Ex.P/9),
Naksha Panchyatnama (Ex.P10). In cross-examination, he admitted
that Sheshmani @ Ajay Gupta died on 23.7.2021. His last rites were
performed on 24.7.2021. This witness admits that in the said altercation, he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38109
5 CRA-11632-2024
had not taken any sides. He had not seen any injury except for the one on
head of his brother Sheshmani @ Ajay Gupta. He admits that Sheshmani @
Ajay Gupta was lying on the stairs where blood was also deposited. It was
seized by the police personnel. He admits that when he had lifted Sheshmani
@ Ajay Gupta, then his cloths too got blood soaked, but he had not given
those cloths in seizure to the police personnel. He further admits that rod
was lying at the place of the incident. He had not seen any blood on the rod.
Rod was measuring about 4 feet. This witness admits that he has filed
several cases in Revenue and Civil Courts with regard to the properties
which are in the name of Chaturbhuj Gupta. Deceased was co-plaintiff in
those cases. He admits that none of the revenue or civil Courts have granted
any injunction in favour of the complainant/deceased and stated that
injunction was not granted because all the properties are in the name and in
possession of Chaturbhuj Gupta.
9. Thus, this witness admitted that it is a case of single blow which has
been corroborated by Dr. Agnivesh Kumar Mishra (PW/2), who had
conducted postmortem. As per the witnesses, incident took place at the spur
of the moment and there was neither any premeditation or planning.
Appellants had not reached the place of the incident, armed with a rod, but
rod was admittedly picked up as was lying on the floor near the place of the
incident.
10. When these aspects are taken into consideration, then case of
appellant No.1 will fall under Exception (4) to Section 300 of IPC, which
reads that "culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38109
6 CRA-11632-2024
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unsual manner."
11. When these aspects are taken into consideration, then Apex Court
in case of Chaitu and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 11 SCC 218] ,
has held that where dispute was oversharing of water from canal leading to
quarrel, and upon grave and sudden provocation, deceased was injured in
ensuing fight by accused and succumbing to injuries only on the next day,
case will fall under Section 300 Exception (1). Hon'ble Supreme Court,
converted the conviction from one under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304
Part-II of IPC. Similar is the ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in
Dashrath Singh Vs. State of U.P. [(2004) 7 SCC 408] .
12. When these judgments of Supreme Court are taken into
consideration and tested in the factual backdrop of the present case, then we
are of the opinion that as far as appellant No.1-Chaturbhuj is concerned, his
conviction under Section 302 of IPC can be and is, therefore, altered to one
under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
13. Accordingly, sentence of appellant No.1-Chaturbhuj too is altered
from life imprisonment to Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years and fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), positively. In default of payment of
fine amount, appellant No.1-Chaturbhuj shall further suffer R.I. for 02
months.
14. As far as appellants No. 2 & 3, Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Asha
Gupta, respectively, are concerned, they have been convicted under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38109
7 CRA-11632-2024
323 of IPC by the impugned judgment and sentenced to R.I. for one year and
fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations. We deem it proper that since they
have already undergone, sentence of about four months, their sentence is
declared to be undergone subject to payment of aforesaid fine amount which
be paid to the wife of deceased Sheshmani @ Ajay Gupta.
15. In the result, appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.
16. Case property be disposed off in terms of the orders of the learned
trial Court.
17. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.
