[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35127
1 CRA-508-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 01st OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 508 of 2016
KAMAL SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Bheemsen Soni - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta - Public Prosecutor for the respondent /
State.
.............................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
This appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred against
the judgment and order dated 03/12/2013 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Agar, District Shajapur (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.185/2013,
whereby the appellant - Kamal Singh has been convicted for the offence
under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for short referred
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35127
2 CRA-508-2016
as, 'IPC') for committing murder of deceased Neelam and has been sentenced
to under go Imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs.10,000/- and under
Section 324 of IPC for causing grievous injuries to injured Ku. Rachna and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 03 years with fine of
Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.
2. It is admitted that the deceased Neelam was sister-in-law
(Bhabhi) of the appellant and injured Ku. Rachna is his niece. Prosecution
story briefly stated is that on 26/05/2013 complainant Rachna (PW-5) along
with his father Dharmendra Singh Rajput (PW-6) came to the Police Station
Agar, District Shajapur and lodged a report to the effect that at about 01:00
pm his mother deceased Neelam and sister Rakhi, Megha and uncle /
appellant Kamal Singh were in the home. His father Dharmendra Singh
Rajput had gone to the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Agar. His uncle Kamal Singh was
not doing any work / business and after taking food always used to stay at
home. He was also harassing his mother for money to meet out his expenses.
When her mother deceased Neelam advised uncle Kamal Singh (appellant)
to do some work for livelyhod rather sitting idle at the home. On this, his
uncle picked up Sickle (Darata, a sharp edged tool) lying in the corner of
the house and caught hold her mother by hairs and dealt with sickle blow on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35127
3 CRA-508-2016
the neck of the deceased, due to which head of the deceased was decapitated
from trunk. On this, she started crying and tried to help her mother, but the
appellant also assaulted her with Sickle, which caused injury on the thumb of
her left hand. Thereafter, appellant dragged the dead body of her mother to
the door and dumped there. After the incident when hearing hue and cry,
neighbors gathered on the spot, and his uncle / appellant Kamal Singh fled
away.
3. On this, FIR (Ex.-P/4) was registered at Crime No.235/2013 at
Police Station Agar, District Shajapur under Section 302 of IPC and
investigation ensued. During the investigation appellant was arrested and
arrest memo (Ex.-P/1) was prepared. MLC report (Ex.-P/7) was obtained and
postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Neelam was got conducted
(Ex.-P/8 and P/9) and query report (Ex.-P/10) was obtained. Spot map (Ex.-
P/11) was also prepared and blood spilled on floor was also collected and
Panchnama (Ex.-P/12) was prepared. During custody, appellant was
interrogated and his statement (Ex.-P/14) under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act was prepared. Sickle, the weapon used in offence was seized from the
appellant and seizure memo (Ex.-P/15) was prepared. Shirt (Ex.-P/16), blood
stained cotton and plain cotton along with Sickle and blood stained clothes
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35127
4 CRA-508-2016
(Ex.-P/17) were sent for FSL Jhoomar Ghar, Rau, whereon report (Ex.-P/18)
was received. The statement of injured Ku. Rachna, daughter of the
deceased, Dharmendra Singh and Slaim Kha were recorded, which have
been marked as Ex.-D/1, D/2 and D/3. After completion of investigation,
charge sheet was led before the Magistrate of competent local jurisdiction,
who after complying with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was made over to
Additional Sessions Judge, Agar, District Shajapur for trial in accordance
with law.
4. Charge under Section 302 and 324 of IPC were framed by the
learned trial Court against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and claimed to
be tried. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 10
witnesses before the trial Court. Apart that, documents (Ex.-P/1 to P/18)
were also marked in evidence.
5. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with
regard to incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the
prosecution evidence. He claimed ignorance with regard to most of the
circumstances and further pleaded that he has not committed any crime, but
the appellant chose not to examine any witness in his defence. The learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35127
5 CRA-508-2016
trial Court vide impugned judgment, which is under challenged, convicted
the appellant for the aforementioned offences and sentenced him to undergo
Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- for committing the murder of
deceased Neelam. He was also convicted for causing hurt to Ku. Rachna
(PW-5) by using sharp edged weapon - Sickle (Darata) under Section 324 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the
impugned judgment on the ground that trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and that material
omissions, contradictions and anomalies have been ignored. It is further
submitted that the learned trial Court has committed a serious error in relying
upon the testimonies of Ku. Rachna (PW-5), Dharmendra Singh (PW-6) and
other prosecution witnesses. Ku. Rachna and Dharmendra Singh interested
witnesses. It is further submitted that the trial Court has not taken into
consideration as to whether the case falls under Section 302 or under Section
304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be
set aside by allowing the appeal. Appellant deserves acquittal from the
charges leveled against him.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supporting the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35127
6 CRA-508-2016
judgment has submitted that the learned trial Court on proper appreciation of
evidence has arrived at finding of the guilt against the appellant. There is
direct evidence of Ku. Rachna (PW-5), daughter of the deceased, who was
present on the spot at the time of incident, which has no inherent infirmity.
His further contention is that there is overwhelming direct evidence against
the appellant with regard to his complicity in the murder of Neelam and
causing injury to Ku. Rachna, which is also supported by medical evidence.
Corresponding injuries have also been found on the dead body of deceased
Neelam and inured Rachna (PW-5). He further submits that the instant case
squarely falls under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC. Hence, learned trial Court
has not committed any error in recording the conviction and imposing
sentence to the appellant. Appeal is devoid of any substance, hence is liable
to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also
carefully gone through the record of the case. The point for determination is
whether the impugned judgment is against law and facts of the case?
9. As regards cause and manner of death of deceased Neelam, we
can advert to the testimony of Dr. Ramlal Malviya (PW-4), who has
examined injured Ku. Rachna (PW-5) and also conducted autopsy on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35127
7 CRA-508-2016
dead body of deceased Neelam. Dr. Ramlal Malviya (PW-4) has deposed
before the Court that on examination of injured Rachna (PW-5), he found
that there was incised wound on his left thumb size 6 x ½ x ½ cm. The
injury was caused by some sharp and hard object within twelve hours from
the time of examination. He prepared MLC report (Ex.-P/8) in this regard.
10. Dr. Malivya (PW-4) has further deposed before the Court that
he conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Neelam and noticed
following injuries on the person of the deceased:
(i) He found that sternal nose and thyroid cartilage of
the neck diameter 35 centimeters was cut, wherein
skin, muscles, veins, trachea, food pipe and spinal
cord between five to six number vertebrae were cut.
Head was separated from the body.
(ii) Incised wound size 6 x ½ x ½ cm over the chin;
(iii) Incised wound on right side of Medieval and its
parallel size 8 x ½ x ½ cm;
(iv) Incised wound on left side of Medieval and its
parallel size 9 x ½ x ½ cm;
(v) Incised wound below the right ear size 4 x ½ x ½;
(vi) Incised wound on the right clavicle bone size 2 x 1
x 1 cm;
(vii) Incised wound in the lower part of right cheek size
6 x 1 x 1 cm;
(viii) Incised wound in between first, second and third
fingers size 3 x ½ x ½ cm;
(ix) Incised wound on the lower part of the right hand
size 9 x ½ x ½ cm; and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35127
8 CRA-508-2016
(x) Incised would on palm of right hand size 7 x ½ x ½
cm.
11. This witness has opined that death was due to excessive
bleeding and the shock, which was due to the injuries on the neck and death
was within twelve hours at the time of examination and was homicidal in
nature. He has prepared postmortem report (Ex.-P/9) and also handed over
clothes of the deceased i.e. Blouse, Saree and Petticoat in sealed pack to the
constable. He has further deposed that on 28/05/2013, Constable B. L.
Sharma along with sealed pack Sickle came with letter from concerned
Station House Officer with a query as to whether the injuries found on the
body of the deceased and injured can be caused by the seized Sickle
(Darata). He has opined that injuries found on the person of the deceased
and injured can be caused by the aforesaid seized Sickle. Query report is Ex.-
P/10. He further stated before the Court that any injury found on the person
of Rachna was also caused by sharp and hard object.
12. Testimony of this witness remained uncontroverted, therefore,
there is nothing to disbelieve this witness. The evidence on record amply
proves that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and was
caused by sharp edged weapon Darata seized by the police. Similarly injury
found on person of the Rachana (P.W.-5) was also caused by hard and sharp
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35127
9 CRA-508-2016
object.
13. Next question, which cropped up for consideration before this
Court is whether the injury caused to injured Ku. Rachna (PW-5) and death
of the deceased were caused by the appellant and appellant alone?
14. In this regard, Ku. Rachna (PW-5) is the most material and
natural witness present on the spot at the time of incident. She has vividly
narrated the incident. In her testimony before the Court she has stated that on
26/05/2013 in between 12:00 to 01:00 pm, she along with her younger sister
and mother were at home. Her mother asked the appellant / her uncle for
doing some business, on this, there was some quarrel between the appellant
and her mother. Appellant caught hold her mother by her hairs and dealt with
Sickle blows on her neck and other parts of the body for near about 5-6
times, which resulted in death of her mother. Appellant dragged dead body of
her mother to the threshold of the door and dumped there. She also sustained
injury on her thumb by Sickle while trying to save her mother. After that she
has lodged merg intimation (Ex.-P/3) at the police station and after that FIR
(Ex.-P/4) was registered, which bears her signatures. She has also proved
spot map (Ex.-P/11), which was prepared by the police. Nothing adverse has
surfaced in cross-examination of this witness, which could impeach veracity
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35127
10 CRA-508-2016
of her statement. Corresponding injuries have been found on the person of
Ku. Rachna and also on the dead body of the deceased Neelam, which give
assurance about the veracity of testimony of this witness and prove
prosecution case.
15. Other witness Rajendra Singh (PW-2) has also proved lodging
of merg intimation and FIR by Rachna (PW-5). Dharmendra Singh (PW-6),
who is husband of the deceased has deposed before the Court that on
intimation by his borther-in-law (Jija), he came to the house and found that
his wife was lying dead with decapitated head from trunk. Her daughter
Rachana has also suffered injury in her hand. He was informed by his
daughter Rachna (PW-5) that she has suffered injury when she tried to
intervene and rescue her mother.
16. From the aforesaid controverted testimonies available on
record, it is amply proved that it is the appellant, who has caused injury to
Rachna and caused death of deceased Neelam by assaulting with Sickle.
17. Learned trial Court has minutely scrutinized the evidence in
right perspective and no factual or legal error has been found in the judgment
passed by the Court below.
18. Looking to the injuries and manner in which the several injuries
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35127
11 CRA-508-2016
have been caused by the appellant on a simple dispute, it cannot be said that
appellant was not having any intention to kill the deceased Neelam or
causing injury to the injured Ku. Rachna, therefore, we are of the considered
view that this case does not fall in any of the exception to S. 300 so that it
may be converted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC.
19. Appeal being devoid of any merit or substance, fails and is
hereby dismissed by affirming the judgment passed by the Court below.
Appellant is already in jail.
20. Let a copy of this judgment along with record be sent to the
concerned Court below by fastest mode for information and necessary
compliance. Copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail
Authority by fastest mode.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
