Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankesh Dhanuk vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12057
1 CRA-1432-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 17 th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1432 of 2025
ANKESH DHANUK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at motion stage.
2. Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 415 of BNSS,
2023 against the judgment dated 8.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge
Vijaypur, District Sheopur in S.T.No.46/2022, whereby the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to suffer three
years RI with fine of Rs.2000/- with usual default stipulation.
3. As per prosecution story, on 8.4.2022 at about 7:00 PM when the
complainant Kamal Dhanuk was standing before his house at village Dhobini at
that time quarrel took place between his nephew Ankesh Dhanuk and Sheetla.
When he tried to understand, the appellant Ankesh Dhanuk abused in a filthy
language and thereafter co-accused Lokendra Dhanuk caught hold his hand and
appellant Ankesh Dhanuk attacked upon him by means of an axe, due to which he
sustained injuries over his ribs and fell down on the spot and Lokendra caused
injury to his left leg by using the wooden stick. Ramsingh Parihar and Sughar
Singh intervened in the matter and saw the incident. Both the accused also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12057
2 CRA-1432-2025
threatened for life. FIR has been lodged at Police Station Vijaypur, District
Sheopur.
4. Dr. Sanjeev Singh Narwariya has conducted the MLC of the victim
Kamal Dhanuk. Accordingly, he has found certain injuries over his ribs and as per
the x-ray report, victim sustained bony injuries over his 7th and 8th ribs. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before JMFC, Vijaypur
and learned JMFC, Vijaypur committed the matter to the Sessions Court.
Additional Sessions Judge, Vijaypur framed the charges under Sections 294, 326
and 506 Part-II of IPC against both the accused persons, however, they denied the
charges and pleaded for trial.
5. Prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 11
documents, whereas the appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.
After scrutinizing the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions
Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, hence the present
criminal appeal has been filed before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is innocent
and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. There is a material omissions
and contradictions in the statements of complainant Kamal Dhanuk and other
witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt
against the appellant. Trial Court has committed grave illegality in convicting the
appellant for the aforesaid offence by overlooking relevant and material oral and
documentary piece of evidence available on record, hence he prays that the
impugned judgment be set aside and the appellant be acquitted from the charges.
7. Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the appeal and prayed
for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12057
3 CRA-1432-2025
8. Both the parties are heard and perused the entire record with due care.
9. So far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC is
concerned, from perusal of the evidence available on record, it appears that the
statement of complainant/victim Kamal Dhanuk (PW-1) is well supported by
eyewitness Ramsingh (PW-2) and Jaldevi (PW-5). Sughar Singh (PW-3) although
turned hostile but he categorically stated that he did not seen the complete incident
but he along with Ram Singh snatched the axe from the possession of the
appellant.
10. From perused of deposition of Dr. Sanjeev Singh Narwariya (PW-4),
MLC report Ex.P/4, statement of Dr. Rishabh Meshram (PW-6) and x-ray report
Ex.P/5 it is clearly established that at the time of incident, appellant Ankesh
Dhanuk assaulted the injured Kamal Dhanuk with an axe and on account of above
assault, victim Kamal Dhanuk sustained bony injury over his ribs.
11. From the statement of ASI Vakeel Singh (PW-9) and Ramlakhan
Dhakad (PW-8) it is also proved that the axe was recovered from the possession of
the present appellant. Nothing is available on record to disbelieve the statement of
aforesaid witnesses which has been duly corroborated by FIR Ex.P/1 which has
been lodged promptly against the appellant. Apart from above, medical evidence
available on record also proved the case of prosecution, therefore, on the basis of
aforesaid evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellant under Section 326 of IPC.
12. So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, learned Trial Court
has sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offence with R.I. of three years and
fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation. In the instant case, the incident was
taken place on 8.4.2022. There is no criminal antecedents of the appellant. He has
already suffered jail incarceration for the period of 424 days during trial and after
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12057
4 CRA-1432-2025
the judgment he is in custody since 8.11.2024. Accordingly, he has suffered jail
incarceration for near about 646 days. Thus, the appellant has already undergone
more than 50% of awarded jail sentence.
13. Having regarding to the totality of the situation, this Court is of the
considered opinion that ends of justice will be meet if the sentence awarded to the
appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. Consequently, this appeal is
partly allowed and conviction of the appellant is hereby maintained and the
appellant is sentenced with the period already undergone and with fine as already
imposed by the Trial Court.
14. The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly as indicated
hereinabove.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
