[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35392
1 CRA-11028-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 3 rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11028 of 2024
VIKAS AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vijendra Pawar - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Jayesh Yadav - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Kshitij Rajpurohit, Advocate for the respondent [OBJ].
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 415 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.09.2024
passed in Sessions Trial No.41/2022 by the learned First Additional Session
Judge, Narsingharh, District Rajgarh (M.P.) whereby accused/appellant has been
convicted under section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to 7 year R.I. with fine of
Rs.2,000/- with further default stipulation of 6 months R.I.
02. The prosecution case before the trial Court was that the appellant No.2
Kajal was married to the victim Deepak Rathore (PW-1) in the year 2020. On
06.11.2021 when Deepak Rathore (PW-1) and accused Kajal was coming to their
home by motorcycle then Deepak Rathore (PW-1) was assaulted by all the
appellant by attempting to strangulate the neck using a rope as a ligature. Deepak
Rathore (PW-1) raised an alarm and two people came there and saved Deepak
Rathore (PW-1). On that, Crime No.464/2021 was registered at Police Station
Kuravar, District Rajgarh. After investigation, a final report was submitted and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35392
2 CRA-11028-2024
RCT No.717/2021 was registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Narsingharh, District Rajgarh and vide order the case was committed to the Court
of Session.
03. All the appellants were tried for the charges under Section 294, 307 and
506 Part-II of the IPC and abjured guilt and claimed for trial.
04. To bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined injured Deepak
Rathore as PW-1, Sunil as PW-2, Balram Singh as PW-3, Dhansingh as PW-4,
Mamtabai as PW-5, Bhuribai as PW-6, Sher Singh as PW-7, Rajesh as PW-8,
Hukumsingh as PW-9, Govind Prasad as PW-10, Sanju as PW-11, Dr. Naresh
Kumar Gavli as PW-12, Mukesh Verma as PW-13, Mukesh Meena as PW-14,
R.S. Malviya - Sub-Inspector as PW-15 and Hemant Saxena as PW-16.
05. In examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, appellants/accused
either denied or expressed ignorance regarding facts and circumstances appeared
against in the prosecution evidence and advanced the defense that they have
falsely been implicated in the case.
06. Appreciating the evidence, the trial Court acquitted the appellants from
the charges under Section 294 and 506 Part-II of the IPC but convicted the
appellant under Section 307 of the IPC recording the finding that on 06.11.2021
all the appellants attempted to murder Deepak Rathore (PW-1) by strangulation of
Deepak after putting the handkerchief in his mouth.
07. Challenging the conviction as well as the sentence, this appeal has been
preferred.
08. Learned counsel for the State as well as objection opposed the appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties & perused the record.
09. In the light of testimony of Deepak Rathore (PW-1), Sunil PW-2 (eye-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35392
3 CRA-11028-2024
witness), Dr. Naresh Kumar Gavli (PW-12) and R.S. Malviya - Sub-Inspector
(PW-15), the conviction of the appellants u/s 307 of the IPC does not call for
interference and is hereby affirmed.
Now come to the question of sentence.
10. Appellant/accused Kajal Rathore is the wife of victim Deepak Rathore
(PW-1). The incident happened due to the intimacy between the appellant No.1
Vikas and appellant No.2 Kajal prior to the marriage with Deepak Rathore (PW-1)
and now parties have settled their dispute and filed compromise before this Court
and the same has been verified on 20.12.2024 before the Principal Registrar of
this Bench.
11. Considering the above and the fact that the appellants/accused have
undergone a period of custody of approximately four months, this appeal is partly
allowed and while affirming the conviction of the appellants u/s 307 of the IPC,
the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
12. The trial court record be sent back along with a copy of the judgment for
compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
