[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Patwa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
Cr.A.No.888/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 18TH OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.888/2025
PRAKASH PATWA
VS.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Ram Prakash Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Guptan, Government Advocate for respondent/State.
................................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
Per : Shri Ramkumar Choubey, J.
Albeit, the matter is listed for consideration of
I.A.No.9096/2025, which is first application filed under Section 389(1)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however,
rather pressing on the said application, the learned counsel for the
parties concur to argue the matter finally. Thus, it is heard finally.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 of
Bharatiya Nyay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the appellant assailing the
impugned judgment dated 31.12.2024 passed by the learned III
Additional Sessions Judge, Deosar, District Singrauli, in S.T.No.56/2020
thereby convicting the appellant under Section 307/34 of IPC and
sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- with
default stipulation.
3. The facts of the case in compendium are that the
complainant Premlal Gupta along with injured Sandeep Gupta and
Vivek Gupta has lodged an FIR on 18.01.2020 with Police Station
Bargawan District Singrauli, to the effect that on the very day at
9.O'clock in the night, when they were going to Bedan to attend a
wedding ceremony, on the way at Bargawa Tiraha, they stopped at a
mobile shop of Sipahilal Vishwakar for purchasing mobile aux-lead,
where appellant Prakash Patwa and co-accused Prince Jaiswal were also
present. The appellant started kidding with the complainant and then he
started abusing and on resisting, he had slapped Sandeep Gupta and also
caused a stick blow on his head. When Vivek Gupta came to rescue,
Sipahilal had given blow with stick. Both the injured sustained injuries
on head and when complainant tried to intervene, then co-accused
Prince Jaiswal had given blows by fists. One Pankaj Vishwakarma came
and saved them. The police registered the FIR vide Crime No.29/2022
for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 503, 34 of IPC. During
investigation, on the basis of medial report of injured Sandeep Section
307 of IPC was added.
3.1 After completion of investigation, a final report was
submitted to the Court of JMFC, who committed the case to the Court of
Session, being exclusively triable by it.
3.4 At trial, the appellant and co-accused Sipahilal
Vishwakarma and Prince Jaiswal abjured their guilt and pleaded
fallacious implication. During trial, the co-accused Sipahilal died. On
the fulcrum of material gleaned by the prosecution and the evidence
adduced, the learned trial Court vide judgment 31.12.2024 acquitted the
co-accused Prince Jaiswal, but convicted and sentenced the
appellant/accused as mentioned above. Hence, the appellant/accused has
filed the instant criminal appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused sanguinely
submits that the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is based
on assumptions. The learned trial court has committed an error in
holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of
IPC and no ingredient of the aforesaid offence is made out. There is no
evidence against the appellant. On medico-legal examination of injured,
doctor concerned has found only simple injuries and none of them were
grievous in nature. There was no use of deadly weapon to cause injury.
The independent witnesses do not support the prosecution case. The
prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond the reason doubt. On
these premise, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the
appellant/accused deserves to be acquitted.
5. In contrast, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that the prosecution by way of evidence adduced before the trial court
has successfully proved the case beyond doubt. Ergo, succouring the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the
respondent/State prays for dismissal of the criminal appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial court.
7. To bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as
many as nine witnesses. Sandeep Gupta (PW3), who is injured, stated
that on 18.01.2019 at 9.O'clock in the night, he along with Premlal and
Vivek Gupta were going to Bedan for attending a wedding ceremony
and on the way at Bargawa Tiraha, they stopped at the mobile shop of
co-accused Sipahilal to purchase mobile aux-lead and at that time there
was altercation over the price of said article, then appellant Prakash
intervened and started abusing and thereafter he started beating him. He
also had altercation with Premlal and Vivek. Sandeep (PW3) further
stated when he was opening the door of his car, the appellant inflicted a
stick blow. He also gave blow to Vivek on his head. This witness also
stated that the appellant and Sipahilal have also beaten Premlal. He statd
that when he was taken to hospital, he became unconscious. Premlal had
lodged the FIR. Due to sustaining grievous injuries, he was hospitalsed
for 17-18 days at Mishra Nursing Home, Bedan and thereafter he was
referred for CT-scan to District Hospital, Rewa and in CT-scan, a
fracture inside the head was detected.
8. Premlal (PW4) has also stated in the same line and he has
corroborated the evidence of Sandeep (PW3). He stated that the
appellant Prakash had first slapped Sandeep and thereafter he gave
blow of stick on his head. He has stated that he had lodged FIR (Ex.P/8).
Vivek Kumar (PW5) has not supported the prosecution case and he has
been declared hostile by the prosecution, but in his statement, he has
admitted certain facts which reveal that there was incident as narrated by
Sandeep (PW3) and Premlal (PW4). Thus, the evidence of Vivek (PW5)
is not fatal to the prosecution. Another witness Pankaj (PW7) whose
name is mentioned in FIR has also not supported the case of prosecution
case, but he has admitted the presence of Vivek (PW5). Ravi Kumar
Gupta (PW8) has stated that on the mobile shop of Sipahilal at
Bargawan Tiraha, there was a quarrel between the complainant party
and accused party. He has clearly stated that the appellant had given
stick blow on the head of Sandeep. He also stated that he himself and
Pankaj Vishwakarma had interveneed. Deepak (PW9) has also been
declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. All these
witnesses namely injured Sandeep (PW3), Premlal (PW4), Ravi Kumar
(PW8) and Deepak (PW9) have stated in the same line. The witnesses
Vivek (PW5) and Pankaj (PW7), their names are mentioned in FIR, but
they have not clearly supported the prosecution case and declared
hostile to some extent. It is revealed from their statements that incident
had happened as narrated by Sandeep (PW3) and other witness Premlal
(PW4), Ravi (PW8) and Deepak (PW9).
9. Dr. Arun Sharma (PW1), who examined the injured
Sandeep (PW3), had found lacerated wound 5x1/4cm on left side of
head. He proved his medical report (Ex.P/1). In the CT-scan report
(Ex.P/4), a fracture of parietal bone of head was detected.
10. Head Constable Sanjeet Singh (PW6), who was the
investigating officer, has stated about the proceedings carried out and
during investigation he recorded memorandum (Ex.P/10) of appellant
and seized a danda vide seizure memo (Ex.P/11).
11. On the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution before
the trial Court, it is well proved that the appellant had caused stick blow
on the head of injured Sandeep, which resulted in fracture of parietal
bone of his head. The evidence of Sandeep (PW3) is well corroborated
by the evidence of Premlal (PW4) and FIR (Ex.P/8), which was lodged
promptly and also the statement of other witnesses Ravi (PW8) and
Deepak (PW9). Further, Dr. Arun Sharma (PW1), who conducted MLC
and examined CT-scan report, also proved that Sandeep sustained
grievous injury on his head resulted in fracture of parietal bone of his
head.
12. So far as the nature of offence committed by the appellant is
concerned, the learned trial Court has convicted him under Section
307/34 of IPC, however, one of the co-accused Prince Jaiswal has been
acquitted and another co-accused Sipahilal has died during trial.
Learned trial Court has concluded that act of the appellant was in
furtherance of common intention with co-accused. But the evidence on
record clearly indicates that there was no previous enmity between the
parties and the incident took place on sudden provocation, when victim
Sandeep along with two others was going to attend the wedding
ceremony at Bedan and stayed in a shop, wherein altercation between
the injured and appellant happened, in which, the appellant had given
blow on the head of the victim.
13. Thus, it is clear that there was no evidence of intent to cause
death, nor any premeditation or prior agreement among the accused
persons. The incident occurred spontaneously during a sudden quarrel
and fight, in the heat of passion. Consequently, the ingredients for an
offence under Section 307 of the IPC (attempt to murder) were not
established. However, since it was proven that the appellant voluntarily
caused grievous injury to the victim Sandeep, specifically a fractured
parietal bone resulting from a stick blow to the head, the appellant is
liable for conviction under Section 325 of the IPC for voluntarily
causing grievous hurt.
14. In view of the above and taking note of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Jamser Ali & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal,
arose out of SLP (Crl.) No.14343/2024 (Cri. Appeal No.222/2021)
rendered on 03.03.2025, the conviction of appellant is altered from
Section 307/34 of IPC to Section 325 of IPC.
15. So far as the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court
under Section 307/34 of IPC for life imprisonment is concerned,
conviction has been altered to Section 325 of IPC and it is revealed from
the record that the appellant has been behind the bars for a total period
of 508 days (156 days during trial and 352 days since trial Court's
judgment), therefore, his conviction is modified and he is directed to
suffer sentence for the period already undergone, and instead of
imposing fine, it would be appropriate to impose adequate compensation
under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
16. The appellant is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand) as compensation to the victim Sandeep (PW3).
Appellant/accused is directed to deposit the compensation amount
before the trial Court within a period of 15 days from the date of this
judgment. In default to suffer four months rigorous imprisonment. The
fine amount, if already deposited, shall be adjusted against the
compensation amount so imposed. Thereafter the trial Court shall
disburse the compensation amount to the victim Sandeep. In case of
failure to deposit the compensation amount, the trial court shall take
necessary steps to get the appellant/accused served the default sentence,
as directed above.
17. Subject to above, since appellant/accused is in jail, he shall
be released immediately, if not required in any other criminal case.
18. With the above alteration, this appeal is disposed of.
19. Record of the trial court along with copy of this judgment
be sent back forthwith.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
sudesh SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA
