Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dashrath Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 July, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
1 CRA-10256-2022
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 9th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10256 of 2022
DASHRATH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Indrajeet Sing Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma- Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3378 of 2023
SIDDHARI YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Avi Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma- Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
ORDER
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
Appeals were heard and reserved for judgment on 07.07.2025.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal I.A. No.
19801/2024, filed in CRA No.3378/2023 an application under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
2 CRA-10256-2022
389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on behalf of Appellant -
Siddhari Yadav.
Accordingly, I.A. No.19801/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
These appeals are filed by the appellants and both appeal have
arisen out of the same judgment dated 17.10.2022.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties both appeal are
finally heard and disposed as below:-
1. The appellants are aggrieved of judgment dated 17/10/2022
passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur, District -
Anuppur in Special Trial No.33/2019 whereby appellants namely
Dashrath Yadav and Siddhari have been convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
323 (
R.I. for one
regarding IPC R.I. for 1 year Rs.1000/- month
Deviki Bai)
R.I. for Ten
(regarding I.P.C. R.I. for life Rs.10,000/-
months
Loknath)
2. It is submitted that co-accused- Chaitram Yadav has been
declared as absconding by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anuppur,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
3 CRA-10256-2022
by order dated 13.12.2018 as mentioned in title of judgment of the trial
Court. Both the accused have been acquitted from the charge under
Section 294 IPC (2 Counts), and regarding injured- Deviki Bai from the
offence under Section 307 of IPC and regarding injured- Loknath from
the offence under Section 323 of IPC.
3. The ground of appeals in appeal No.10256/2022 is that offences
against the accused persons are not proved. There are contradictions and
omission in the Statements of witnesses. The single injury sustained by
the victim has not been explained. Incident had taken place at night.
Victim is ready to compromise, therefore, prayer is made for acquittal.
4. The ground of appeal in Cr.A. No.3378/2023 is that
memorandum and seizure witnesses Vijay Yadav and Roshni Yadav
were not examined. Seizure of weapon is highly doubtful as seizure is
shown from agriculture field whereas there is no agriculture field in
front of deceased- Loknath's house. Although, there is C.T. scan report
(Ex. P/16) showing fracture but film of C.T. scan is not produced before
the trial Court. There is no previous enmity as admitted by Loknath
(PW/2). Deviki Bai (PW/9) also stated that when Loknath (PW/2) tried
to intervene, he suffered injury, and there was no intention or
knowledge. Intention to commit murder is not proved. Hence, prayer is
made to acquit the appellants.
5. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State, in his turn, opposes the prayer for acquittal and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
4 CRA-10256-2022
supports the impugned judgment.
6. Considered the arguments and perused the record. As per
prosecution case on 03.08.2018 Devki Bai (PW/9) had gone to the house
of her brother-in-law (Jija) Loknath Yadav (PW/2) in Village Kodaili.
At about 05:00 PM in the evening accused persons went to house of
Loknath and abused him and by use of a Wooden Paati with intention to
kill Devkiabai and Loknath, assaulted both of them causing them
injuries. Injured were brought to hospital and they were examined by
Dr.A.N. Khan (PW/7) and their medical report are Ex.P/10 of Loknath
and Ex.11 of Devki. FIR (Ex.P/9) Crime No.248/2018 was registered at
Police Station, Kotwali, District Anuppur. Query report regarding
weapon of assault is Ex./P/12. On police query whether Loknath is fit to
give statement, Ex.P/13 report was given in which it is mentioned that he
is not fit to give statement. Patti/Danda (article A-1) is the weapon sent
along with query report. X-ray report was obtained regarding the injured
Loknath and accused persons were arrested. On the basis of
memorandum of accused- Dasrath (Ex.P/18) wooden Patti was seized
from him by seizure memo (Ex.P/20) and on the basis of memorandum
Ex.P17 of Siddhari, 'Lath' was seized from him, Seizure memo is
Ex.P19. From the spot blood soaked soil was seized by Seizure Memo
(Ex.P14) all seized material were sent for FSL examination by letter
(Ex.P/24) and report was received which is Ex.P/25, according to which
blood Soaked soil Article A-1, Article C and Article D Wooden Stick
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
5 CRA-10256-2022
(Paati) seized from both the accused were examined and on article A and
C human blood was found.
7. After completing the investigation charge sheet was filed and
case was committed to the Session Court. Accused were put on trial and
when charged with offences as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment, the
accused pleaded innocence and demanded trial. After the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses were recorded. Accused persons in examination
under Section 313 of Cr.PC submitted that they are innocent and have
been falsely implicated. Appellants have examined, Nilesh Gupta
(PW/1) as defence witness.
8. On perusal of the evidence of both the parties we find that there
are no material contradiction and omission in prosecution evidence in
this case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyamal Ghosh vs State Of West
Bengal (AIR 2012 SC 3539) held as under:-
"47. From the above discussion, it precipitates that the
discrepancies or the omissions have to be material ones and then alone,
they may amount to contradiction of some serious consequence. Every
omission cannot take the place of a contradiction in law and therefore, be
the foundation for doubting the case of the prosecution. Minor
contradictions, inconsistencies or embellishments of trivial nature which
do not affect the core of the prosecution case should not be taken to be a
ground to reject the prosecution evidence in its entirety. It is only when
such omissions amount to a contradiction creating a serious doubt about
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
6 CRA-10256-2022
the truthfulness or creditworthiness of the witness and other witnesses
also make material improvements or contradictions before the court in
order to render the evidence unacceptable, that the courts may not be in a
position to safely rely upon such evidence. Serious contradictions and
omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution have to be
understood in clear contra-distinction to mere marginal variations in the
statement of the witnesses. The prior may have effect in law upon the
evidentiary value of the prosecution case; however, the latter would not
adversely affect the case of the prosecution. Another settled rule of
appreciation of evidence as already indicated is that the court should not
draw any conclusion by picking up an isolated portion from the
testimony of a witness without adverting to the statement as a whole.
Sometimes it may be feasible that admission of a fact or circumstance by
the witness is only to clarify his statement or what has been placed on
record. Where it is a genuine attempt on the part of a witness to bring
correct facts by clarification on record, such statement must be seen in a
different light to a situation where the contradiction is of such a nature
that it impairs his evidence in its entirety."
9 . It was also submitted that evidence of interested witnesses
cannot be accepted. In this regard in Birender Poddar vs State of Bihar
(AIR 2011 SC 2336) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"14. Now coming to the question of reliance by the prosecution on
witnesses who are related to the deceased, we find that the law is well-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
7 CRA-10256-2022
settled that merely because the witnesses are related is not a ground to
discard their evidence. On the other hand, the court has held that in many
cases, the relations are only available for giving evidence, having regard
to the trend in our present society, where other than relations, witnesses
are not available. It is of course true that the evidence of the interested
witnesses have to be carefully scrutinised. We find that the High Court
has scrutinised the evidence of the relations with due care and caution.
15 x x x x
16. Two other decisions which have been cited by learned counsel
for the appellant were rendered in the case of Namdeo v. State of
Maharashtra [(2007) 14 SCC 150] and in the case of State of
Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan and Others [(2009) 14 SCC 267]
which dealt with the question of appreciation of evidence of interested
witnesses. Both those decisions follow the well-settled principle that just
because evidence is given by the interested persons that is no ground for
discarding the same. We have already held that in the instant case, the
evidence given by PWs 5, 6, 7 and 8 is quite cogent and clearly
established the prosecution case."
10. In Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors vs State of
Haryana (AIR 2011 SC 2552), Hon'ble Supreme has held as under:-
"19. Depositions of Trilok Singh (PW.9) and Ajaib Singh (PW.10)
fully corroborate the medical reports. The High Court correctly
appreciated this issue as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
8 CRA-10256-2022
"So, according to their testimonies two injuries were caused to
Gian Singh (deceased), four injuries were caused to Nishan Singh
(deceased) and three injuries were caused to Ajaib Singh (PW.10). In
medical evidence also, two injuries were found on the body of Gian
Singh (deceased) and four injuries were found on P.W.10 Ajaib Singh as
per copy of medico legal report Exhibit P.AA. There is some conflict
about the seat of the injuries as stated by P.W.9 Trilok Singh and P.W.
10 Ajaib Singh."
The testimonies of Trilok Singh (PW.9) and Ajaib Singh (PW.10)
are fully reliable. Ajaib Singh (PW.10) is an injured witness in the same
occurrence and his testimony cannot be ignored."
11. Therefore, evidence of PW/2-Loknath and PW/9- Devki can't
be discarded. It was also submitted that accused persons were injured in
the incident but no injury report of appellants is attached.
12. In this regard the settled position of law is that prosecution is
not bound to explain minor injury on the body of accused person as they
may have been caused by the complainant while trying to defend
themselves, it is only grievous injury if occurred in the same incident
which prosecution is bound to explain. In Raghubir Singh v. State of
Rajasthan, (2011 12 SCC 235) , it is held as under by Hon'ble Supreme
Court:-
"14. It has firstly to be borne in mind that the injuries on the
accused had not been explained as the prosecution witness did not utter a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
9 CRA-10256-2022
single word as to how they had been suffered by them. In this view of
the matter, the defence can legitimately raise a suspicion that the genesis
of the incident was shrouded in mystery and the prosecution had
suppressed a part of the proceeding. It is true, as contended by Dr.
Manish Singhvi, that each and every injury on an accused is not required
to be explained and more particularly where all the injuries caused to the
accused are simple in nature (as in the present case) and the facts of the
case have to be assessed on the nature of probabilities. Examining the
incident in the light of the above, we find that the injuries in the present
case were required to be explained as there is a serious dispute as to the
possession of the land in which the incident had happened, more
particularly as Raghuveer Singh himself was uncertain as to the nature
of the possession as per the statements on record and the Patwari had
also warned the complainant party not to trespass into the land.
Undoubtedly, there are a large number of injured witnesses, some of
them grievously hurt, to support the prosecution case, but in the light of
the finding of the High Court that there was uncertainty about the
possession, this fact by itself cannot preclude the accused from claiming
that no case was made out against them."
13. It was also submitted that defense witness Dr. Nilesh Gupta
stated that on 03.08.2018 accused Dashrath was working on his
'Attachakki' from 10 AM to 06:00 PM but in cross-examination this
witness has denied that he is trying to save accused - Dasrath. In this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
10 CRA-10256-2022
regard in a case of plea of alibi the defence has to prove its case like the
prosecution has to prove its case but not beyond reasonable doubt but
with certainity. In the case of Pappu Tiwary Vs. State of Jharkhand,
2022 Livelaw SC 107 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:-
"16. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that there are
three eye witnesses, Pankaj Kumar Singh (PW-6), Subodh Kumar Singh
(PW-13) and Chandraman Singh (PW-18) and their testimonies have
broadly been consistent, which assign the role to Law Tiwari. The
endeavour to apprehend him on 07.03.2000 was not successful as he was
found absconding by the IO on six different occasions when his premises
were visited. He was only subsequently arrested and taken on remand on
04.04.2000. The contention of learned counsel for the State was that
neither the advise of Dr. M.P. Singh nor the x-ray having been produced,
and Dr. M.P. Singh not having been produced as a defence witness or
summoned, there was not a piece of paper evidencing the admission and
treatment of Law Tiwari in the hospital which could be produced in
support of his plea of alibi. He also drew our attention to the fardbeyan
to indicate that Law Tiwari and other accused had demanded a
motorcycle of the deceased to go to Meral in connection with a case,
which was declined. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the
conduct of Law Tiwari even during custody was not proper as he had
extended a threat to the informant and the informant had suffered fire
arm injury on 13.06.2001. Consequently, case No.107/2001 was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
11 CRA-10256-2022
registered at the Garhwa Police Station. In the end it was contended that
there was no attempt made to distinguish the appellant's role from that
of Ajay Pal and the appeal of Ajay Pal being dismissed, the only aspect
which had to be examined was whether the concurrent findings of the
two courts below rejecting the plea of alibi was required to be interfered
with by this Court when the burden lay heavy on the appellant as when
such a plea is raised the accused must discharge that burden. We may
refer to the judicial view in this behalf in Vijay Pal v. State (Government
of NCT of Delhi)1 wherein this Court held that:
" 27. In our considered opinion, when the trial court as well as the
High Court have disbelieved the plea of alibi which is a concurrent
finding of fact, there is no warrant to dislodge the same. The evidence
that has been adduced by the accused to prove the plea of alibi is sketchy
and in fact foes not stand to reason. It is not a case where the accused has
proven with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his
presence at the place of occurrence. The evidence adduced by the
accused is not of such quality that the Court would entertain a reasonable
doubt. The burden on the accused is rather heavy and he is required to
establish the plea of alibi with certitude." In Jitender Kumar v. State of
Haryana2 this Court stated that:
"71. .... The burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the
appellants and the appellants have failed to bring on record any such
evidence which would, even by reasonable probability, establish their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
12 CRA-10256-2022
plea of alibi. The plea of alibi in fact is required to be proved with
certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of
the accused at the place of occurrence and in the house which was the
home of their relatives."
17. We have given our thought to the limited scope of appeal of
Law Tiwari and we do not find any merit whatsoever in the same. It has
been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that the
burden was on Law Tiwari to establish the plea of alibi (Vijay Pal3 and
Jitender Kumar4), which he failed to discharge. It was not a case where
(2015) 4 SCC 749 (2012) 6 SCC 204 (supra) opportunity was not
granted to him. In fact, two witnesses were produced in defence by Law
Tiwari and two court witnesses were also summoned. However, the
relevant evidence was not led."
Therefore, if we consider the case of defense regarding the
accused Dasrath then it is seen that no document has been produced to
show that accused-Dasrath was working on the day of incident i.e.
03.08.2018 on the 'Atachakki' and has been falsely implicated.
14. In fact in examination under Section 313 of Cr.PC, accused-
Dasrath himself not stated that at the time of incident he was not at the
spot of incident and was elsewhere. In fact no suggestion has been given
to Loknath (PW/2). That at the time of incident Dasrath was elsewhere
and was working at 'Attachakki' and he has been falsely implicated,
therefore, plea of Alibi of Dashrath is not proved. It is an afterthought
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
13 CRA-10256-2022
and is rejected.
15. Sushila Yadav (PW/1) wife of Loknath stated that she could
not see the incident and she has been declared as hostile. In cross-
examination by the defense in Para 5 again she stated that incident did
not occur before her, she only saw the accused running. Loknath (PW/2)
in examination in chief stated that Siddhari assaulted him with a 'Lathi'
and he fainted, this injured witness was also declared hostile. In Para 2
this witness has also stated that Siddhari came and wanted to take his
wife to his home and he had asked him to take her back next date on
which suddenly Siddhari assaulted him with 'Pattiya' of the wooden cot.
In cross-examination Para 6, this witness has stated that at the time of
incident while he was having his food in 'Parchhi' the accused started
beating Devki and therefore, he tried to save Devki and it is also correct
to say that initially Siddhari did not start the quarrel with him. In fact he
was quarreling with Devki and incident happened because he was trying
to save Devki. Smt. Chandrawati (PW/3) is hostile. Sitaram (PW/5) is
also hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case on material
points. Shivshankar Patwari (PW/4) and Praful Rai (PW/6) are formal
witness of investigation. Dr. PradeepTiwari (PW/8) has conducted C.T.
scan but report is not exhibited.
16. Devki (PW/9) while in examination in chief has stated that
accused assaulted her 'Jija' Loknath with 'Khat ki Paati' and while she
tried to intervene she was also beaten due to which her right hand was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
14 CRA-10256-2022
fractured, but in cross-examination Para 7 she stated that accused -
Dasrath was not assaulting 'Jija' Loknath. ASI Shrawan Tiwari (PW/11)
is the Investigation Officer. In cross- examination Para 6 this witness
PW/11 has admitted that Devki has told him that her husband i.e.
Siddhari had come to take her and while he was pulling her on the bed,
therefore, she was injured due to the fall. PW/8- Pradeep Tiwari has
stated that there was fracture in head of Loknath but original report of
C.T. Scan film not produced or exhibited.
17. On overall consider and totality of the case we find that while
it is proved that accused assaulted Devki and Loknath but intention to
commit murder under Section 307 of IPC is not proved and to that
extent finding of trial Court in its judgment in Para 35 is not correct and
against the Provision under Section 307 of IPC which is reproduced
bellow:-
"Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would
be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the
offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
18. Therefore, as offence under Section 307 I.P.C., intention is the
main ingredient and on the basis of evidence as discussed above,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
15 CRA-10256-2022
intention to cause serious injury is not proved by prosecution against
appellants, what to say about attempt to commit murder by
appellants/accused even causing of fracture or grievous injury causing
severe body pain for 20 days is not proved. Therefore, whatever offence
was committed in the heat of moment when quarrel suddenly started,
when accused Siddhari was trying to take his wife- Devki with her to his
home from home of her 'Jija' PW/2 Loknath & appellant Dasrath tried
to help Siddhari in the offence.
19. Therefore, conviction of the accused persons/appellants
namely Dashrath Yadav and Siddhari can be modified. Accordingly
allowing the appeals in part sentence of appellants, namely Dashrath
Yadav and Siddhari is converted from Section 307 of IPC to Section 324
of IPC for voluntarily causing hurt while maintaining the conviction and
sentence in regard to Devki under Section 323 of IPC. Thus both the
accused persons/appellant are convicted instead of under Section 307 of
IPC to under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to the period already
undergone along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. Accused - Dashrath
remained in custody from 07.08.2018 to 06.10.2018 during trial and
from the date of judgment dated 17.10.2022 to 16.02.2024 when
suspension of sentence was allowed. Likewise accused Siddhari Yadav
remained in custody from 07.08.2018 to 06.10.2018 and from the date of
judgment till date he is in custody. In default of payment of fine amount
each appellant shall suffer additional imprisonment of six months each.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30505
16 CRA-10256-2022
21. Appellant - Dashrath Yadav is already on bail vide order dated
16.02.2024. His bail bond is discharged subject to deposit of fine, if not
already deposited. As far as appellant Siddhari Yadav is concerned, he
be released immediately, if his custody is not required in any other case
subject to deposit of fine amount. Compensation as per Para 43 of
judgment of learned Trial Court be paid to injured Devki and Loknath
from the fine deposited by the Trial Court.
22. As per Para 44 of the judgment of the trial Court one accused
is absconding, therefore, let record be preserved. Accordingly, both the
appeals i.e. CrA No.10256/2022 and Cr.A. No. 3378/2023 are disposed
of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
NRJ
