Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umesh Sondhiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40530
1 CRA-10397-2024
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 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10397 of 2024
UMESH SONDHIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrkar - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, learned
counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A. No. 23552 of 2024
which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellants as the matter is taken for final disposal at motion stage.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No. 23552 of 2024 is dismissed as
withdrawn.
3. This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the
Cr.P.C. by the appellants Umesh Sondhiya and Brijkishor @ Bijju
Sondhiya being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.08.2024 passed by
learned 14th Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewa District Rewa in Sessions Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40530
2 CRA-10397-2024
No. 42 of 2019 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the
appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced with Rigorous
Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation of
R.I. for six months.
4. It is submitted that, as per the brief facts of the case, incident
took place on 19.12.2018 when deceased Lalai had an altercation with
Umesh Sondhiya and Brijkishore @ Bijju Sondhiya as a result of which
he was beaten with kicks and fists at about 07 to 08 p.m. as a result of
which Lalai died. Information was given by Smt. Gayatri Sondhiya (PW-
5) on which merg was registered, investigation was carried out, charge-
sheet was filed, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, it is not a
case under Section 302 of IPC. Incident took place at the spur of the
moment. Dr. Sharad Sondhiya (PW-15) admitted that there were only
two injuries on the body of the deceased Lalai. One was contusion over
the splenic area measuring 3 x 2 inches and some scratches on elbows
and both the hands. There was a contusion on his face measuring 1/2
inches with irregular boundaries. He was smelling of alcohol. In his
opinion, he mentioned that, deceased died because of rapture of pliha
resulting in excessive blood loss. His Postmortem report is Ex.P-15. In
query report, he has mentioned that pliha could have been ruptured on
account of beating with kicks and fists. Query report is Ex.P-26 and
short postmortem report is Ex.P-27. This witness admitted that, if
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40530
3 CRA-10397-2024
somebody falls straight on a hard surface under the influence of alcohol,
then pliha/spleen can burst.
6. It is submitted that, as per the eye-witness account, since
injury was caused with kicks and fists which cannot be said to be any
deadly weapon and incident took place at the spur of the moment,
conviction is required to be altered from one under Section 302/34 of
IPC to Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC.
7. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State fairly accepts the submissions made by Shri Manoj
Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and submits that this
will be a case under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the records.
9. Smt. Geeta Sondhiya (PW-6) is the eyewitness. She has stated
that, when incident took place between 07 to 08 p.m. she was inside her
house, when she heard cries for help then she had opened her gate and
came out, she saw Lalai Sondhiya being beaten by Bijju Sondhiya and
Umesh Sondhiya with kicks and fists. When she shouted for help, they
did not yield. She had seen the incident. Her husband was a truck driver.
10. This piece of evidence of Smt. Geeta Sondhiya (PW-6) has
remained unrebutted and therefore, it is evident that, incident took place
in front of her and she had seen the appellants beating deceased Lalai
with kicks and fists.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40530
4 CRA-10397-2024
11. When this aspect of the matter is taken into consideration,
t h e n Subramani @ Jeeva @ Kullajeeva Vs. S.H.O. Police Station
Odiyansalai (2011)14 SCC 454 has held that, when parties were
mocking each other then if incident took place out of a sudden quarrel,
then act of the accused will fall under Section 304 Part-II IPC as it will
come under exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. Similar is the ratio of law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Chaitu & Ors. Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2014)11 SCC 218.
12. Dr. Saras Sondhiya (PW-15) who conducted postmortem has
stated that deceased was smelling of Alcohol, if he would have fallen on
hard surface with his stomach down, then he could have sustain injuries
resulting in rupture of spleen.
13. When these facts are corelated, then evidence of Smt. Geeta
Sondhiya (PW-6) who had seen the incident and that of the Dr. Saras
Sondhiya (PW15) who also stated that on account of consumption of
alcohol also, spleen enlarges and there is possibility of it being burst,
cannot be ruled out, but when evidence of eyewitness PW-6 is taken into
consideration, then the present is not a case of acquittal but one where
we can alter the conviction from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304 Part-
II read with Section 34 IPC.
14. Accordingly, the conviction is altered from Section 302/34
IPC to Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC.
15. This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40530
5 CRA-10397-2024
judgment of conviction is modified to the extent that appellants shall
suffer sentence of 07 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five
Thousand) each, in default of payment of fine amount, appellants will
suffer R.I. for six months. It is clarified that if any fine amount is already
deposited, then it will be adjusted against the fine amount ordered by this
Court.
16. Case property be disposed off in terms of the order of
learned trial Court.
17. Record of learned trial Court be sent.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
AR
