Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indal Kumar Ramdhani Nishad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12720
1 CRA-1575-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1575 of 2019
INDAL KUMAR RAMDHANI NISHAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shyam Prakash Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G. S.Thakur - Government Advocate for the State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Smt. Anuradha Shukla
This appeal was listed for hearing on I.A. No.8331/2024, which is an
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant, but this
appeal has been heard finally with the consent of counsel for both the
parties.
2. The judgment passed on 20.12.2018 in Sessions Trial No.9600795/2016
by 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, is challenged here, whereby the
appellant (hereinafter referred to as "accused") was convicted for the offence
of Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine
of Rs.1,000/- with a direction to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of
six months in case of non-payment of fine.
3. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that accused was in custody from
13.7.2016 to 20.12.2018 (date of judgment) i.e. for a period of 890 days
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12720
2 CRA-1575-2019
during trial and post-conviction he is in custody since the date of passing of
impugned judgment.
4 . Brief facts relevant for the decision of this criminal appeal are that
accused Indal Kumar Nishad used to reside with his wife Seemabai and
children in the house of Radheshyam Meena in Laukhedi, Police Station
Kohefiza, district Bhopal; he was insisting on returning to village but his
wife was not agreeing to this proposal and therefore a dispute was going on
between them for past one month prior to the date of incident i.e. 13.7.2016;
on that day also, a quarrel broke out between them in the presence of their
children and accused gave his wife blows with an axe; his daughter Radha,
who is the complainant in the case, ran away with her two brothers from the
spot and informed the landlord; by the time complainant came back to the
room along with landlord, her mother had passed away; the matter was
reported to the police; the appellant was arrested and blood-stained axe along
with other articles was seized. After completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was filed and the matter went up for trial in which accused was
convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
5. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that without there being
sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable
doubt, he has wrongly been convicted and sentenced but during course of
arguments, counsel for accused restricted his prayer only on conversion of
conviction to a lesser offence of Section 304 IPC and to reduce the sentence
awarded by the trial court.
6. State has opposed the appeal and has supported the findings of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12720
3 CRA-1575-2019
conviction and quantum of sentence passed by the trial Court.
7. Counsel for both the parties have been heard and the record has been
perused.
8. A perusal of FIR, marked as Ex.P-15, reveals that it was registered on
the information of Radha, who is the daughter of accused. The contents of
FIR reflect that this 16-year-complainant was well aware of the dispute that
was going on between accused and his wife for almost a month as he was
insisting upon to go back to the village while his wife, i.e. deceased, had
resentment on this proposal. FIR further shows that on the date of incident,
the two were engaged in the same dispute when accused lost his temper and
gave blows to his wife with an axe resulting into her death on the spot.
Relevantly, the facts mentioned in FIR have not found any support from the
testimony of complainant Radha (P.W.13) since she has denied to have seen
the incident. Despite being declared hostile, she has failed to state any
incriminating fact against her father i.e. accused.
9. Radheshyam Meena (P.W.5) is the landlord in whose house accused was
residing with his family. He states that on hearing the cries of complainant
Radha, he went to the room of accused Indal and saw that wife of Indal was
lying dead on the bed and Indal was sitting besides her with an axe in his
hand. The statements of this witness confirm the fact that accused was very
much present at the time of incident and was beside his deceased wife with
an axe with him. Prosecution witnesses Lalit Meena (P.W.7) and Harish
Meena (P.W.6) have corroborated the testimony of Radheshyam Meena
(P.W.5) on these facts.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12720
4 CRA-1575-2019
10. According to FSL report, Ex.P-16, the axe recovered from accused,
marked as Article "G", tested positive for the presence of human blood. The
recovery of an axe stained with human blood connects the accused with the
crime. The fact of recovery of an axe from accused has convincingly been
established by the testimony of Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh
(P.W.11), Harish Meena (P.W.6) and Lalit Meena (P.W.7).
11. The statements of Dr. Priyamvada Kurveti (P.W.8) reveal that there
were sharp cut wounds on the right posterior side of neck and some
contusions were found on frontal and temporal lobe. The cause of death of
deceased Seemabai, wife of accused, has been assigned to excessive bleeding
and brain injury. This medical evidence establishes that she was given fatal
wounds resulting into her death.
12. We, therefore, have no doubts that despite complainant Radha
becoming hostile, the statements of Radheshyam Meena (P.W.5), Harish
Meena (P.W.6), FSL report, Ex.P-16, and testimony of Dr. Priyamvada
Kurveti (P.W.8) have established the fact that accused had hit his wife with
an axe which resulted into her death.
13. The question arises whether the act of accused is punishable under
Section 302 IPC or can be converted to a lesser offence. The Supreme Court
in the case of Dhirendra Kumar alias Dhiroo v. State of Uttarkhand, 2015
SCC Online SC 163, has laid down the parameters which are to be taken into
consideration while deciding the question as to whether a case falls under
Section 302 IPC or Section 304 IPC and they are :
(a) the circumstances in which the incident takes place,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12720
5 CRA-1575-2019
(b) the nature of weapon used,
(c) whether weapon was carried or was taken from the spot,
(d) whether the assault was aimed on vital part of the body,
(e) the amount of force used,
(f) whether the deceased participated in a sudden fight,
(g) whether there was any previous enmity,
(h) whether there was any sudden provocation,
(i) whether the attack was in the heat of passion, and
(j) whether the person inflicting the injury took any undue advantage
or acted in a cruel or unusual manner
14. If these parameters are taken into consideration, it is evident that the
deceased and accused were having a prolonged dispute and on the date of
incident, they were again engaged in a brawl which caused sudden
provocation to the accused to hit his wife with an axe. Most of the injuries
are on the same part of the body and it has not been categorically proved that
they are the result of multiple blows. Further, the weapon used was already
in the room and after causing injury to the wife, accused did not run away
from the scene. His immobilization along with the weapon of offence
reflects that he too was in a shock and made no attempt to run away from the
place. In sum and substance, it is gathered that the accused committed the act
in a heat of passion on sudden provocation, therefore it is a fit case to convert
his conviction from one under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I of IPC.
15. The conviction of appellant is modified to Section 304 Part I of IPC
and taking into consideration the circumstances under which the crime was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12720
6 CRA-1575-2019
committed, we award a sentence of ten year rigorous imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.1,000/- with a direction to undergo further rigorous imprisonment
of six months in case of non-payment of fine.
16. Let a supersession warrant be prepared by the trial court in accordance
with the modified conviction and sentence. The disposal of seized property
be ensured in accordance with the directions given by the trial court.
17. A copy of this judgment along with the record be transmitted forthwith
to the trial court for information and necessary compliance.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ps
