Roopendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1335 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Roopendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 July, 2025

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30588




                                                                  1                             CRA-6937-2022
                              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 9 th OF JULY, 2025
                                                CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6937 of 2022
                                                         ROOPENDRA
                                                            Versus
                                                THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                              Shri Abhay Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
                              Shri Nitin Gupta, Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

                                                              JUDGMENT

Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal

This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short), is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 22.02.2022, passed by learned IV Additional Session Judge, Chhindwara (M.P.), in S.T.No.376/2020, whereby, appellant Roopendra S/o Ambika Yadav, has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to 'IPC' for short), for which he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of one year additional R.I.. Similarly, he has been convicted under Section 498-A IPC with 01 year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of one month R.I..

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that prosecution case in

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30588

2 CRA-6937-2022

short is that on 03.10.2020, appellant had beaten his wife Geeta Yadav and with a view to cause death had caused injuries with an axe on her head, then on the same date at about 06:00 P.M., appellant had poured petrol on the body of Geeta Yadav and put her on fire. Her neighbourers had dialed 100 and called and taken her to District Hospital, Chhindwara.

3. On the basis of the report of the injured, Mahendra Mishra (PW/12), lodged 'Dehati Nalishi' Ex.P/17, bearing No.0/20, under Section 498-A and 307 of IPC.

4. Medical doctor, Dr. Chandra Shekhar Thakur (PW/13), had examined Geeta Yadav and on examination found that she had sustained 80- 85% burns and an incised wound measuring 3x1 cm on her head, caused by

hard and blunt object.

5. It is submitted that there are contradictions in the dying declaration given by the victim Geeta Yadav to the concerned doctor, who had first carried out MLC i.e. Ex.P/22, inasmuch as, in Ex.P/22, it is mentioned that there is history of burn by petrol self due to frustration by husband. Thus, it is submitted that in the MLC Ex.P/22, proved by Dr. Chandra Shekhar Thakur (PW/13), it is clearly mentioned that she had poured petrol on her own being tortured by her husband, but in 'Dehati Nalishi', she improvised her statement.

6. It is further submitted that in the dying declaration Ex.P/16, proved by Vikram Singh Thakur (PW/11), Naib Tahsildar, it is mentioned that she was put on fire by pouring petrol, but Vikram Singh Thakur (PW/11), admitted that she had not stated as to who had poured petrol on her and lit the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30588

3 CRA-6937-2022 fire. This aspect is categorically admitted by Vikram Singh Thakur (PW/11) in para 5 of his cross-examination. Thus, it is submitted that there is no evidence of appellant pouring petrol over the victim Geeta Yadav and, thus, the conviction of the appellant with the aid of Section 302 IPC, is not made out.

7. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State supports the impugned judgment of conviction and submits that there is evidence of torture, therefore, the judgment of conviction be maintained.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, neither in 'Dehati Nalishi' Ex.P/17, it is mentioned that appellant tortures the victim for demand of dowry. The only allegation in 'Dehati Nalishi', is that under the influence of alcohol, appellant was beating the victim.

9. Section 498-A IPC, deals with cruelty by husband or relatives of husband, subjecting a woman to any willful conduct so to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman; or harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or any security.

10. In the present case, aspect of second clause under Section 498-A of IPC is not made out. However, conduct of the appellant under Clause (a), is made out and, therefore, as far as conviction under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned that is not required to be disturbed.

11. As far as charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned, there is

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30588

4 CRA-6937-2022 evidence of Dr. Chandra Shekhar Thakur (PW/13), that victim had herself informed him that burn was caused due to she herself pouring petrol on her body and liting fire. This statement of Dr. Chandra Shekhar Thakur (PW/13), has remained unrebutted. There is own admission of the victim that she had poured petrol and put herself on fire.

12. On the contrary, Vikaram Singh Thakur (PW/11), Naib Tahsildar, also admits that marriage of the victim was performed 10-15 years prior to the incident. She has three children at her home. She had also stated that she has no problem with any other member of the family, but her husband is troubling her under the influence of alcohol. In para 5, Vikram Singh Thakur (PW/11), admitted that victim had not narrated the timing of causing injury with an axe. He further admits that she had only said that petrol was poured and fire was lit, but who did it, is not mentioned by her.

13. Thus, none of the four ingredients of Section 300 IPC are made out so to constitute the offence of murder and, accordingly when the four ingredients of Section 300 of IPC are not made out, then it cannot be said that appellant is guilty of committing murder.

14. Thus, it is evident that charge of pouring petrol and putting victim on fire is not made out. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Thakur (PW/13) has not opined that death had occurred due to head injury, therefore, appellant will be convicted under Section 324 of IPC. Hence, conviction under Section 302 of IPC is altered to Section 324 of IPC.

15. Accordingly, impugned judgment as far as it deals with conviction

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30588

5 CRA-6937-2022 under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, is modified to the extent that appellant is convicted under Section 324 of IPC for which he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. Judgment of conviction under Section 498-A of IPC is, hereby, maintained.

16. Case property be disposed of in terms of the order of the trial Court.

17. Record of the trial Court be sent back.

18. In above terms, appeal is allowed and disposed of.

                                     (VIVEK AGARWAL)                           (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
                                          JUDGE                                         JUDGE
                           A.Praj.