Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15565
1 CRA-1607-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1607 of 2015
SHRIRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Anita Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri H.S. Rathore - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on:- 08.05.2025.
Posted on:- 26.06.2025.
................................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is
preferred challenging the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and
sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default
stipulations vide judgment dated 25.11.2014 passed in Sessions Case
No.26/2014 by Sessions Judge, Barwani(M.P.).
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 28.11.2013
appellant/accused inflicted injuries to his wife Mamta Bai, aged 35 years in
his house situated at village Lehadgaon, P.S Nagalwadi, District Barwani, in
the presence of his daughter Durga (PW-1) because appellant/accused has
doubt about chastity of his wife. After inflicting the injuries by Axe on the
neck of Mamtabai, appellant/accused left the house and Durga (PW-1)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15565
2 CRA-1607-2015
arranged the bullock cart to take her mother to hospital for treatment but
Mamta succumbed to injuries.
3. Durga (PW-1) intimated the incident through Ex.P/18 and Dehati
Nalisi was recorded. Thereafter, crime No.186/2013 was registered at Police
Station Nagalwadi, District Barwani against the appellant under Section 302
of the IPC on the same day. Spot map was prepared, autopsy was conducted
and statements were recorded.
4. Appellant/accused was apprehended on 29.11.2013 by Ex.P/14. Axe
was recovered vide Ex.P/4 on the production of Durga (PW-1). On
28.11.2013 at 16:15 pm investigation was completed and a final report was
submitted in the Court of JMFC, Rajpur, where criminal case No.08/2014
was registered and vide order dated 30.01.2014, the case was committed to
the Court of Sessions.
5. Appellant/accused abjured the guilt and claimed for trial on charge
of Section 302 of the IPC. To bring home the guilt the prosecution examined
eye witness Durga as PW-1, Hussain uncle of deceased as (PW-2), Riley bai
mother of deceased as (PW-3), Sitaram brother of accused as (PW-4), Rem
Singh father of accused as (PW-5), Pappu elder brother of accused as (PW-
6), Shobharam as (PW-7), Medical Officer Dr. Ritesh Kaag as (PW-8),
Patwari Magan Chouhan as (PW-9), photographer Om Prakash as (PW-10),
Sub-Inspector Sudeep Soni as (PW-11) and Head Constable Rajendra Verma
as (PW-12).
6. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,1973
appellant/accused admitted relationship with Kumari Durga (PW-1), Sitaram
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15565
3 CRA-1607-2015
(PW-4), Pappu (PW-6) and Rem Singh (PW-5). Rest of the facts and
circumstances were either denied or ignorance was expressed.
Appellant/accused raised the defense that he did not kill his wife, he was at
his field when his wife died. He pleaded innocence. No evidence was
adduced in defense.
7. Appreciating, the evidence trial Court concluded that the death of
Mamta is homicidal in nature. Trial Court found Durga (PW-1) reliable and
appreciating the testimony of Dr. Ritesh Kaag (PW-8), photographers article
A1 to A5, concluded that appellant/accused caused the death of his wife
Mamtabai by inflicting injuries through Axe. The act of appellant/accused
falls within the purview of Section 302 of the IPC and convicted and
sentenced accordingly.
9. Challenging the conviction and sentence this appeal has been
preferred on the ground that statements of Durga (PW-1), Hussain (PW-2),
Riley Bai (PW-3) are contradictory. Sitaram brother of accused (PW-4),
Rem Singh father of accused (PW-5), Pappu elder brother of accused (PW-
6) and Shobharam (PW-7) has not supported the prosecution version. The
blood stain found on the Axe was not sent for further examination. Report of
Forensic Science Laboratory, Rau, Indore does not establish the culpability
of the appellant. No fact is established from Hussain (PW-2) & Rileybai
(PW-4). Sole testimony Durga (PW-1) is not sufficient to convict the
appellant/accused.
Heard and perused the record.
10. Durga (PW-1) was aged 14 years when her deposition was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15565
4 CRA-1607-2015
recorded on 16.06.2014. The incident occured only 06 months prior to the
recording of her statement and she has stated that among four brothers and
sisters she is the eldest and has studied upto 7th standard. She has narrated
the incident that at about 2:00 pm when she was standing outside her home
and her mother was lying on the cot then her father was making a dispute and
he was sitting near the cot. Her father was making quarrel with her mother
because her father has doubt about chastity of her mother. She saw from the
hole of the gate that his father assaulted two times on the neck of her mother
by Axe. She pushed the door and tried to save her mother but his father
closed the door and warned her not to enter the room otherwise she will be
killed. When PW-1 entered in the house then appellant thrown the axe and
ran away from the house. Thereafter, she arranged a bullock cart to carry her
mother to the hospital but in this course her mother died and she lodged a
Dehati Nalisi. She handed over the axe that was used in the crime by her
father to the Police.
11. Cross-examination of this witness is expanded in five paras i.e.
para 5 to 9 and only para 7 is relevant for the purpose of defense of the
appellant in which the witness has admitted that when a door is closed from
the inside then darkness occurs and faces cannot be clearly seen from the
hole and the gate. She admits that she cannot say about the presence of third
person at the time of incident. Last line of para 8 has also been emphasized in
which she admitted that when she entered in the house then she found that
her mother was lying on the cot and no bedsheet was on the cot and she
carried her mother from the cot to bullock cart and appellant was not present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15565
5 CRA-1607-2015
at that time.
12. Para 6 was also emphasized in which she stated that after seeing
that his father has assaulted her mother she entered into the room after 1/2
hour and she has not seen her father when he ran away from the house.
Durga (PW-1) has stated that in her house there is only one gate, there is no
window and prior to the incident her mother was lying on the cot and his
father was sitting near the cot. She rushed to the gate when she heard the
sound of assault and she saw inside the room/house from the hole of the gate.
This witness has stated that when she cried for help then her father ran away
from the house.
13. When there is only one gate and there is no window in the house
then the statement of Durga (PW-1) that she does not know the presence of
other person except the presence of father and mother could not be construed
the presence of other person when prior to the incident only mother and
father were present in the house. Taken as a whole the Durga (PW-1) is
reliable and there is no reason she will depose against her father. Trial Court
has rightly found this witness as reliable.
14. Durga (PW-1) has made available the axe that was used by
appellant in assaulting and as per Ex.P/16 the human blood was found on the
axe. Accordingly, findings of the trial Court that appellant is the person who
inflicted the injury on the body of her wife is based on proper appreciation of
prosecution evidence and does not call for interference and is affirmed.
15. Now, coming to the findings of the trial Court that act of the
appellant falls within the purview of Section 300 of the IPC. Ritesh Kaag
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15565
6 CRA-1607-2015
(PW-8 ) conducted the autopsy on the body of Mamta at 5:05 pm on
28.11.2013 at PHC, Ojhar, District Barwani and found a total six injuries on
the body of the Mamta which are as follows:-
(1) Incised wound RM , size 8cm x 2 cm x 4cm present over left
side neck region and extend to the lower part of left pinna caused by hard
& sharp object.
(2) Incised wound RM - 5 cm x 3 cm x 4 cm present over left side
neck caused by hard & sharp object.
(3) Incised wound RM size - 1 cm x 1 cm x superficial present over
1"anterior to left angle of mandible caused by hard & sharp object.
(4) Incised wound RM size - 3 cm x 2cm x 2cm present over right
side forehead just above the right side eyebrow caused by hard & sharp
object.
(5) Fracture of left side mandible seen.
(6) Contusion - 5cm x 2 cm internal haemorrhage seen in left
thoracic region caused by hard & blunt object.
16. Dr. Kaag (PW-8) has opined that due to haemorrhage shock as a
result of the injuries over face, neck & chest region death was caused and
further answered to the query that the injuries found on the body of the
deceased may be caused by the axe sent for query.
17. Testimony of Rileybai (PW-3) and Durga (PW-1) established that
cause of assault by the appellant was doubt about her chastity. Repeated
number of assaults on the body of his wife the nature of weapon used and
force applied that caused fracture of mendible bone left side and preventing
his daughter to help her mother and thereafter, left the house and not tried to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15565
7 CRA-1607-2015
take the wife even for medical help taking cumulatively are sufficient to infer
that appellant was intended to commit the death of his wife and his act
certainly falls within the Clause -I of Section 300 of the IPC and punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC.
18. Findings of conviction recorded by trial Court are based on proper
appreciation of evidence. Appellant has been sentenced for minimum
sentence provided under Section 302 of the IPC hence, no interference is
required in sentence also.
19. In the light of above this criminal appeal is devoid of merit and is
hereby dismissed.
20. Copy of the judgment be provided to the appellant/accused
through concerned Superintendent Central Jail for information and necessary
action. Record of the trial Court be remitted back for compliance.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
akanksha
