Madhya Pradesh High Court
Samnu Baiga @ Jaggad Baiga vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26135
1 CRA-4196-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4196 of 2021
SAMNU BAIGA @ JAGGAD BAIGA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ram Prakash Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Satya Pal Chadar- G.A. for the State.
ORDER
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374
(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 19.10.2020 passed by Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur District Anuppur in ST No.127/2014
(State Vs. Samnu Baiga @ Jaggad Baiga), whereby appellant has been
convicted under Section 307 of IPC and 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and
sentenced to RI for ten years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and RI for one year with
fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulations.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.5.2014 at about 6:30 in the
evening, in the complainant' house at Village Bijodi, Jaldatola, appellant-
accused assaulted his wife Tarabai Baiga with sword and thereby caused
injuries in her fingers/palm. Appellant tried to commit murder of Tarabai
Baiga but Tarabai Baiga in an attempt to save herself caught hold of sword
and thereby sustained injuries as found in the medical report.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26135
2 CRA-4196-2021
3. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that he is not
challenging the main incident. His only submission is that from evidence on
record, offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out. It is urged that
injured Tarabai Baiga did not sustain injury on any vital part of her body. She
has sustained injuries in her right hand, and therefore, learned trial Court has
wrongly convicted and sentenced appellant under Section 307 of IPC.
Alternatively, it is also urged that appellant is in jail since 19.10.2020. Thus,
appellant has undergone sentence of more than five years out of sentence of
ten years. Therefore, he may be sentenced with the period already undergone
by him. Therefore, appeal be allowed and appellant be acquitted of offence
under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that prosecution
has proved its case by leading cogent evidence and there are no grounds to
interfere with the same. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the appellant, as above. Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard and perused the record of the case.
Analysis and findings:-
6. So far as appellant's conviction under Section 307 of IPC is
concerned, from testimonies of Tarabai Baiga (PW-4), Phulchibai (PW-5),
Sukhram Vishwakarma (PW-6), Munnnibai Choudhary (PW-9), Dr.KB
Prajapati (PW-10), Investigating Officer Pushwaraj Singh (PW-12), Naresh
Kumar Patel (PW-13), Bhagole Choudhary (PW-15), FIR (Ex.P-10), MCL
(Ex.P-16), query report (Ex.P-17) and appellant's examination under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26135
3 CRA-4196-2021
313 of Cr.P.C., it is clearly established that at alleged time, date and place,
appellant assaulted his wife Tarabai Baiga with sword and thereby caused
injuries as found in the medical report. Hence, with respect to aforesaid,
findings of the trial Court are affirmed.
7. Now the sole issue before this Court is whether from evidence on
record offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out or not. With respect to
aforesaid, para 4 of examination-in-chief of Tarabai Baiga (PW-4) is
relevant, which reads as under:-
'' यह कहना सह है क तभी अिभयु मेर जान लेने क िनयत से गदन
म तलवार मारा तो मैने हाथ से रोक ली जससे मेर उगली एवं अंगूठा
कट गये थे । .................. क फर गांव के लोग 108 ए बूलस बुलाए थे ।
यह कहना सह है क य द तलवार मेर गदन म लगती तो मेर ह या हो
जाती ।''
8. Thus, from testimony of Tarabai Baiga (PW-4), it is evident that
appellant tried to commit murder of his wife Tarabai Baiga, but as, to save
herself, Tarabai Baiga caught hold of sword, she sustained injuries in her
right hand as found in the medical report. With respect to factual matrix of
the matter, principle as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of SK Khaja Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715 is
relevant and facts of aforesaid case are also identical with the facts of present
case. Hence, S.K.Khaja (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the instant
case.
9. Hence, just because Tarabai Baiga did not sustain any injury on any
vital part of her body, it cannot be said that offence under Section 307 of IPC
is not made out. Therefore, submissions of learned counsel for the appellant
are negated.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26135
4 CRA-4196-2021
10. Hence, in view of aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this
Court, in the instant case the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of IPC
are clearly made out. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant under Section 307 of IPC. Hence, findings of learned trial Court
are affirmed.
11. So far as appellant's conviction under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the
Arms Act is concerned, in view of appellant's memorandum (Ex.P-3),
seizure memo (Ex.P-5) and testimony of Investigating Officer (PW-12), it
cannot be said that learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant
under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act. Hence, findings of learned trial
Court are also affirmed.
12. So far as sentence is concerned, learned trial Court has sentenced
the appellant under Section 307 of IPC with RI of ten years and under
Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act with RI of one year with default
stipulations. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant be
sentenced with the period already undergone by him.
14. Evidently, appellant is husband of Tarabai Baiga (PW-4). It is also
evident that she did not sustain injury on any vital part of her body. She
sustained injuries in the fingers/palm of her right hand. Appellant has
completed sentence of more than five years out of ten years. In the instant
case the incident is dated 12.5.2014 and there are no criminal antecedents of
present appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26135
5 CRA-4196-2021
15. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, ends of justice would be served,
if the appellant is sentenced with the period already undergone by him.
16. Hence, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paras, this
criminal appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is sentenced under Section
307 of IPC to the period already undergone by him. Learned trial Court has
sentenced the appellant under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act with one
year' RI. Trial Court has also ordered both the sentences to run concurrently,
therefore, appellant has already served the sentence as awarded under
Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act.
1 7 . Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands partly allowed and
disposed off.
18. At present appellant is in jail, hence it is directed that present
appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
19. A copy of this judgment be sent to concerned jail and trial Court
for information and necessary compliance.
20. Record of the trial Court be sent back.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Ansari
