Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaiyalal @ Jhabbu Chandrawanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27353
1 CRA-1728-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1728 of 2021
BHAIYALAL @ JHABBU CHANDRAWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Pegwar - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Hemlata Kshatriya- Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
.........................................................................................................................
RESERVED ON : 19.06.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.06.2025
.........................................................................................................................
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement on this day, the court passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374
(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 05.03.2021 passed by Sessions
Judge, Chhindwara, District-Chhindwara in S.T.No.138 of 2019, whereby,
the appellant has been convicted under Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC and
has been sentenced with RI of ten years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default
stipulation.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 09.07.2019, at about 16:45, near
deceased Dhunnu's field, appellant/accused assaulted deceased with wooden
stick on account of some dispute pertaining to drainage in the field. On
account of aforesaid, deceased expired on the next day.
3 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that wooden stick
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27353
2 CRA-1728-2021
(Danda) allegedly recovered from appellant was not sent to doctor for query.
No blood stain has been found on Danda. As per site Panchanama (Ex.P/6),
(PW-1) and (PW-2) are not eye-witness to the incident. Karan has not been
examined by the prosecution. Deceased did not sustain any head injury.
Deceased was 75 years old person. Deceased has sustained injury on account
of fall. His body was found in one and half feet deep drainage. Dr. Ajay
Rajput has admitted in his cross-examination that injury sustained by the
deceased can be caused by fall in one and half feet deep drainage. Similarly,
if a person of the age of deceased falls from 10 feet height, then, he can
sustain injury as found on the person of deceased. Further, after referring to
Dr. Ajay Rajput's testimony, it is urged that doctor has admitted that if
deceased had received prompt and good treatment, then, his life might have
been saved.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that appellant is in
jail for more than 6 years and if remission is included, then, he has
undergone sentence of more than 8 years, out of sentence of 10 years. It is
also urged that in the instant case, incident has occurred all of a sudden on
account of some drainage dispute between the parties. Alternately, it is also
urged that appellant be sentenced with the period already undergone by him.
Hence, appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and he be acquitted of the
offence.
5 . Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/state has submitted that
prosecution has proved its case by leading cogent evidence & has proved
guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt & there are no grounds to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27353
3 CRA-1728-2021
interfere with the same. The trial court has rightly convicted & sentenced the
appellant, as above. Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of
the case.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-
7. So far as incident is concerned, prosecution witness Rajaram (PW-
1) has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 09.07.2019, at about 4-5
in the evening, he was taking round of the field to look after the crop. Then,
all of a sudden, he heard a sound of save - save, then, he saw that Bhaiyalal
@ Jhabbu was assaulting his grand-father Dhunnu with stick infront of his
house. He shouted and reached at the scene of incident, then, Jhabbu fled
from the scene of incident, after assaulting his grand-father 2-4 times. In the
meanwhile, his father also came, there was a drainage and his grand-father
Dhunnu had fallen in the drainage. Later-on, his grand-father expired in the
Hospital. Punaram (PW-2) has also deposed almost identically.
8. Prosecution witnesses Rajaram (PW-3) has also deposed that on
09.07.2019, at about 5 pm in the evening, his younger brother Asharam
informed him on telephone that accused Jhabbu has beaten grand-father
Dhunnu on account of dispute pertaining to drainage. He has asked witness
to Dial 100 number and Ambulance. Thereafter, witness called police as well
as Ambulance. He had asked his grand-father about the incident, then, he had
told him that on account of drainage dispute, accused Jhabbu has assaulted
him with Danda. He had also seen the injury on the person of grand-father.
9. Perusal of testimonies of aforesaid prosecution witnesses reveal that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27353
4 CRA-1728-2021
they been extensively cross-examined on behalf of appellant/accused. It is
evident from cross-examination of aforesaid prosecution witnesses that there
are no material contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in their Court's
testimonies and police statements. Further, there is nothing in their cross-
examination, so as to render them untrustworthy or unreliable.
10. It is evident from testimony of aforesaid prosecution witnesses that
there was some drainage dispute between the parties but in view of evidence
available on record, it cannot be said that on account of aforesaid, appellant
has been falsely implicated.
11. It is correct that in Ex.P/6, spot Panchanama, it is mentioned that
after seeing Dhunnu in injured condition, Karan informed deceased's family
member. On the basis of aforesaid, it has been argued that Rajaram (PW-1)
and Punaram (PW-2) are not eye-witnesses to the incident. Ex.P/6 is a spot
Panchanama, which has been prepared by Patwari (PW-5) while preparing
site map. Therefore, on the basis of Ex.P/6, it cannot be said that (PW-1) and
(PW-2) are not eye-witnesses to the incident. In view of aforesaid, it is also
immaterial that prosecution did not examine Karan in the instant case.
1 2 . Hence, in this Court's opinion, prosecution witnesses Punnaram,
Rajaram and Asharam are wholly reliable witness.
13. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there
was no head injury, deceased was aged 75 years, he had fallen in one and
half feet deep drainage and thereby sustained injury.
14. Perusal of Dr. Ajay Rajput's statement and postmortem report
Ex.P/8 reveal that deceased had sustained fracture of right clavicle bone and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27353
5 CRA-1728-2021
left hand humerus bone, contusions were present on right shoulder, two ribs
i.e. 4th and 5th were broken, there was puncture in right lung upper lobe,
lungs were filled with blood, abrasions from left flank region, contusion on
the head on left partial region. Thus, it cannot be said that deceased was
having no injury on the head.
15. Further, though Dr. Ajay Rajput has admitted in his cross-
examination that it is correct that if a person of the age of deceased falls in a
one and half feet deep drainage, then, he can sustain injuries but the witness
has also stated that such grievous injuries would not be caused by such fall.
The witness has also admitted in his cross-examination that it is correct that
if a person of the age of deceased falls from the height of 10 feet, then, he
can sustain injuries as found in the post-mortem examination.
16. There is nothing on record to show that deceased had fallen from
10 feet height. Deceased's body was found in one and half feet deep
drainage. Deceased was aged 75 years. Hence, it cannot be said that the
injuries sustained by the deceased were result of fall in one and half feet deep
drainage. It is correct that Dr. Ajay Rajput has admitted in his cross-
examination that if deceased had received prompt and good treatment, then,
his life might have been saved. In this Court's opinion, aforesaid fact does
not help appellant in any manner whatsoever. It also so because from record
of the case, it is evident that immediately after the incident, deceased was
admitted in the Hospital.
17. Dr. Ajay Rajput has deposed in his examination-in-chief that after
perusal of article (Danda), he had given his report that the injury sustained by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27353
6 CRA-1728-2021
the deceased can be caused by seized article (Danda). His query report is
Ex.P/9. Contrary to above testimony, Dr. Ajay Rajput has deposed in para-12
of his cross-examination that at the time of query, article Danda was not
shown to him by the police.
1 8 . Above testimony of Dr. Ajay Rajput is contrary to his report
Ex.P/9 and his statement in examination-in-chief. Even, if it is assumed that
no seized article was sent to Dr. Ajay Rajput at the time of query, still,
aforesaid is not sufficient to make prosecution case doubtful. In the instant
case, there is no FSL report on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that
Danda allegedly recovered from appellant is one and the same, which was
used for commission of offence. Therefore, recovery of aforesaid article is of
no use.
19. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras, in this Court's
opinion, from evidence on record, it is clearly established that at alleged date,
time and place, appellant assaulted deceased with Danda and thereby caused
various injuries, including fractures as mentioned in post-mortem report, on
account of which, deceased expired. Hence, in the instant case, ingredients
constituting offence under Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC clearly stands
established. Hence, findings of trial Court with respect to aforesaid, are
affirmed.
20. So far as sentence is concerned, learned trial Court has sentenced
appellant for offence under Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC with R.I. 10 years
and with fine. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant
case, incident has occurred all of a sudden on account of some drainage
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27353
7 CRA-1728-2021
dispute, deceased was aged 75 years. Appellant is in jail since 12.07.2019
and thus he has completed actual sentence of more than six years and with
remissions 8 years.
21. Having regard to age of deceased as well as nature of injuries,
including fractures sustained by the deceased, no case for reduction in
sentence is made out.
22. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court
has rightly sentenced appellant under Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC with
R.I. 10 years and with fine. Hence, sentence imposed by the trial Court is
justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is
required in the same and they are affirmed as such.
23. Resultantly, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and
judgment passed by the trial Court is affirmed.
24. Copy of judgment be sent forthwith to the concerned jail with the
direction that appellant be informed immediately about the result of this
appeal.
25. Appeal filed by the appellant is disposed accordingly.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
