Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Prasad @ Kukku Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40748
1 CRA-11866-2024
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 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11866 of 2024
RAM PRASAD @ KUKKU YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press
I.A.No.27954/2024, which is an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the appellant- Ram Prasad.
Accordingly, I.A.No.27954/2024, is dismissed as not pressed.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken
up for final disposal at motion stage.
This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment
dated 03.10.2024, passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Hatta
Session Division Damoh (M.P.), in S.T.No.55/2021, whereby, the appellant
has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC for which he is
sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40748
2 CRA-11866-2024
stipulation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is
innocent. Dr. Ashok Baroniya (PW/4), admitted that there were only three
injuries on the body of the injured, namely, one abrasion on the nose
measuring 2 x 2 cm, swelling on the right hand side of the head measuring 4
x 3 cm, for which X-ray was opined and, third was a swelling on left elbow
measuring 4 x 3 cm.
3. In cross-examination, Dr. Ashok Baroniya (PW/4), admitted that
there were only three injuries on the body of the injured.
4. Dr. Pushpraj Bhatele (PW/12), had carried out X-ray and admitted
in cross-examination that if a person falls from a height, then the injuries as
were found on the head of the injured could have been contacted.
5. Dr. Govind Jharia (PW/13), stated that he was working as a
casuality Medical Officer at Medical College Jabalpur. He had conducted
postmortem. He had seen one lacerated wound measuring 5 x 2 cm on
forehead. Deceased died because of head injury within 24 hours of
postmortem. This witness too admitted that if a person falls from a height,
then the injuries as contained in his head could have been contacted.
6. Dr. Aditya Vikram Singh (PW/14), Neuro Surgeon, too admitted
that injured was unconscious. He was not in a condition to give his
statements. In query report, injuries were said to be homicidal.
7. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that Mayarani Yadav (PW/1), is the eye witness. She is wife of Man
Singh. It is submitted that as per the prosecution case, Man Singh was going
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40748
3 CRA-11866-2024
towards the jungle to graze his buffalos. When buffalos had entered into the
fence of the appellant Kukku @ Ram Prasad and started grazing his fence,
then Kukku @ Ram Prasad abused Man Singh and then had given him a lathi
blow. Thus, it is submitted that as per the eye witness account also, the
incident took place at the spur of the moment. There is no premeditation, nor
appellant took any undue advantage of his situation. He just tried to save his
fence being grazed by the buffalos. Thus, case will fall under Section 304
Part-II IPC as it is covered under Fourth Exception to Section 300 of IPC.
8. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State, in his turn, fairly submits that conviction of the appellant
can be altered to one under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, Supreme Court in Chaitu and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
[(2014) 11 SCC 218], held that dispute over sharing 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, held case falls under Section 300 Exception (1).
10. In Kariman Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine (SC)
607, Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue of sudden quarrel and has
held that in case of a sudden quarrel, case will fall under Section 304 Part-II
of IPC.
11. In the present case, when documentary evidence is examined, then
incident took place on 21.09.2020. Deceased succumbed to injuries on
23.09.2020. The injury in the opinion of the doctors which turned out to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40748
4 CRA-11866-2024
fatal was a injury to the head, which according to Mayarani Yadav (PW/1),
was caused in a sudden quarrel over grazing by buffalos of the fence of the
appellant. Therefore, present case will fall under Exception (4) to Section
300 of IPC and, accordingly, we alter the conviction of the appellant from
one under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
12. Accordingly, appellant is directed to undergo R.I. for 07 years for
the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and fine of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), with default stipulation of 02 months
R.I.
13. With the aforesaid modification, appeal is allowed and disposed
off.
14. Case property be disposed off in terms of the judgment of the
learned trial Court.
15. Record of learned trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.
