Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bihari Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14819
1 CRA-11541-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11541 of 2022
BIHARI RAJPUT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sachindra Kumar Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the appellants .
Shri Akhiledra Singh - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Devnarayan Mishra
This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by
the appellants being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 16.11.2022 passed by Learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Raisen, District Raisen in SCATR No.200061/2016 whereby
the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
294 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months,
under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with
fine amount of Rs.200/-, under Sections 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.200/-, under Section 3(1)(r) of SC &
ST (POA) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and Section 3(2)(v)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14819
2 CRA-11541-2022
of SC & ST (POA) Act and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with
fine amount of Rs.200/- with default stipulations.
2. In nutshell, the prosecution case before the trial Court was that the
victim Ram Singh Dhobi (PW-1) at 6:00 am after taking bath was worshiping
below the Peepal tree, the appellant No.1 Bihari Rajput reached there and by
using his caste name, started abusing him by filthy language and assaulted
him with ballam. Victim had suffered the injuries in both the hands on that
his wife Kalabai Dhobi (PW-2) reached to rescue him, on that the appellant
No.2 Man Singh Rajput assaulted her by lathi. The appellants threatened the
victim Ram Singh Dhobi (PW-1) that in future if he performs the worship, he
will face the dire consequences of life. By dialing 108, Ambulance was
called. Injured Ram Singh Dhobi (PW-1) was brought in the Community
Health Center, Bareli, District Raisen from there the victim Ram Singh
Dhobi (PW-1) was referred to District Hospital, Raisen and from there to
Bhopal. Victim Ram Singh Dhobi (PW-1) has also taken treatment in private
hospital. The appellants were arrested. From their possession, ballam and
lathi were recovered and seized. After usual investigation, the charge-sheet
was submitted in Crime No.371/2016 for the offence punishable under
Sections 307, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) and
3(2)(5) of SC & ST (POA) Act. On commitment, the case was submitted
before the Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act.
3. The trial Court framed the charges for the offence punishable under
Section 307 r/w 34 on two counts, under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC and
under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act as read over and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14819
3 CRA-11541-2022
explained. The appellants abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.
4. The trial Court recorded and examined the statement of prosecution
witnesses, under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., appellants have stated that they
have been falsely implicated and examined the defence witness Balwant
Singh (DW-1) and took the defence that on the date of incident, in the
morning Ram Singh's wife (PW-2) reached near the handpump and asked
appellant No.1 Bihari to remove his bucket from the handpump that she will
firstly draw the water and when appellant No.1 Bihari objected, she started
abusing appellant No.1 Bihari and at that time victim Ram Singh Dhobi (PW-
1) came there and scuffled with appellant No.1 Bihari. The appellants were
not assailants.
5. The trial Court after hearing both the parties has convicted and has
passed the impugned order as stated above, hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no case of
Section 307 of IPC is made out. In the FIR, it has been clearly stated that
only appellant No.1 Bihari assaulted with ballam to Ram Singh (PW-1) but
as per the medical evidence proved by Dr. Satish Uikey (PW-6), the injuries
suffered by Ram Singh were caused by hard and blunt object not by the
sharp object. In the same way, it has been stated that Man Singh and Hotilal
assaulted Kalabai (PW-2) by ballam and lathi and injuries suffered on the
head were said to be caused by hard and sharp object. There is material
contradiction in the statement of the victims and medical evidence.
7. Learned counsel for appellants has also submitted that as per the
statement of Dr. Arpit Bandi (PW-10), on CT Scan, hairline fracture was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14819
4 CRA-11541-2022
found on the head of Ram Singh Dhobi (PW-1) and no X-ray or CT Scan of
victim Kalabai (PW-2) was submitted before the trial Court and only on the
statement that in the MLC report, Dr. Satish Uikey (PW-6) has stated that the
injury was grievous but no reason, on what ground, injury was grievous, has
not been disclosed. Thus, injury suffered by the victim Ram Singh Dhobi
(PW-1) cannot said to be life threatening. Hence, the appeal be allowed and
appellants be acquitted from the charges.
8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has
supported the judgment of the trial Court and has submitted that the trial
Court has properly appreciated the evidence, hence, no interference is called
for. There is no substance in this appeal. Hence, appeal be dismissed.
9. We have heard the parties and perused the record.
10. Dr. Satish Uikey (PW-6) has stated that on 25.06.2016, he was
posted as Medical Officer in Community Health Center, Bareli on that at
7:15 am Ram Singh Dhobi was brought by 108 Ambulance. On examination,
he found that in lacerated wound measuring 8 x 1 x 8 cm in the vertex part of
the head, another lacerated wound on the left side of the head measuring 5 x
1.1 cm, another lacerated wound on the right index finger measuring 3.1 cm
x 1 cm on the lateral part of the left forearm. Two lacerated injuries on the
right forearm, injuries caused in the head was of grievous in nature. Rest
injuries were simple and injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.
11. Dr. Arpit Bandi (PW-10) has further treated the victim found stitch
wound on the above injuries and stated that there was a hairline fracture on
the head.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14819
5 CRA-11541-2022
12. On the same day, Kalabai (PW-2) was medically examined by
Satish Uikey and submitted that there was incised wound in the right side of
the head measuring 6 x 1 cm on the right parietal region, contused injury
over the left forearm and contusion over both the thighs. Thus, this victim
has suffered the injuries by the sharp object and as per Dr. Ashutosh Shukla
(PW-9), the fracture was found in both the hands of the victim Kalabai (PW-
2) and on that basis, he has submitted that the injuries suffered by Kalabai
were grievous in nature.
13. All these facts are collectively taken into consideration. It is clear
that the injured Ram Singh (PW-1) suffered no injury from the sharp-edged
weapon as all the injuries were found in the form of lacerated wound and
were caused by hard and blunt object and fracture was found on the head. In
the same way, the injured Kalabai (PW-2) suffered injury by sharp-edged
weapon on head and no fracture was found on the head of the victim Kalabai
(PW-2) and the injuries suffered by Kalabai (PW-2) that were suffered in the
forearm and thighs that were caused by hard and blunt object and as per Dr.
Ashutosh Shukla (PW-9) it is clear that the fracture was found in left
forearm.
14. Thus, injured Ram Singh (PW-1) suffered grievous injury on head
and Kalabai (PW-2) suffered the grievous injury on her hand on that basis
the statement of Ram Singh (PW-1) that appellant No.2 Man Singh and
appellant No.1 Bihari assaulted the him by ballam is not reliable. In the same
way, the statement of the victim Kalabai (PW-2) that all the accused persons
assaulted Ram Singh (PW-1) by ballam is contrary to the medical evidence,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14819
6 CRA-11541-2022
hence, cannot be reliable but it is clear that both the victims suffered the
grievous injuries.
15. Dr. Satish Uikey (PW-6) has stated that the injury suffered on the
head of victim Ram Singh (PW-1) and victim Kalabai (PW-2), grievous in
nature. But on what basis, he has stated that injury was grievous, has not
given any reason. Victim Kalabai (PW-2) was further treated by Dr.
Ashutosh Shukla (PW-9) but no fracture was found on the head of Kalabai
(PW-2) and Dr. Ashutosh Shukla (PW-9) has clearly stated that injuries
suffered by Kalabai (PW-2) were not endangering to life but that were the
grievous in nature.
16. Dr. Arvind Bandi (PW-10) has stated that injury suffered by victim
Ram Singh (PW-1) may be endangering to life and on that basis the trial
Court has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section
307 of IPC but from the cross-examination, it is clear that the injury suffered
on the head, fracture was caused and Haematoma was found and on the head,
no surgery was committed and that was cured by medication. In the
definition clause of Section 320, the Grievous Hurt is defined in No.8, "it has
been stated that any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to
be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow
his ordinary pursuits" has been defined as a grievous injury. Thus, all injuries
suffered by victims do not come under purview of attempt to murder.
17. Furthermore, in para No.8 of the cross-examination of Kalabai
(PW-2), it has been brought that at the time of incident, the appellant No.1
Bihari was also drawing water from handpump and at that time, she went to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14819
7 CRA-11541-2022
the handpump having a bucket and the dispute started when she asked that
firstly she will draw the water from handpump. Thus, it is also clear that the
quarrel suddenly took place and the genesis of the quarrel that has been
stated by the prosecution has become false.
18. On the material point, it is also clear that the original victim Ram
Singh (PW-1) was assaulted by hard and blunt object and to make his case
more serious, he has put the story that two accused persons had assaulted the
victims with ballam and lathi, but it is also clear that all the accused persons
were also present on the spot and assaulted the injured Ram Singh (PW-1)
and his wife Kalabai (PW-2). Injuries sustained by Ram Singh (PW-1) and
Kalabai (PW-2) were grievous in nature and also the injuries were caused by
sharp-edged weapon with the common intention by the accused persons.
19. From the above discussion, it is also clear that the quarrel sudden
took place and the assault was committed in that quarrel and injuries
sustained by the victims. The prosecution failed to prove that any accused
persons have assaulted repeatedly on the victims/injured. Thus, the intention
of the appellants was not to cause the murder of the injured persons and
furthermore, from the injuries also, not demonstrated that the injuries
suffered by victims are of such nature that the Court may only infer that the
appellants were having intention to cause the death of the injured persons.
20. From the statement of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the
complainants Ram Singh (PW-1) and Kalabai (PW-2) and the caste
certificate proved by Md. Haneef Khan (PW-12) that the injured persons by
caste were Dhobi and that is listed in the Scheduled Caste in the District
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14819
8 CRA-11541-2022
Raisen but in the cross-examination, the witness Kalabai (PW-2) has stated
that the quarrel took place due to drawing the portable water from the
handpump not because of that the injured Ram Singh (PW-1) was
worshiping below the Peepal tree and whereas Ram Singh (PW-1) has stated
that the appellant No.1 Bihari firstly abused him and called him by his caste
name and objected that not to worship but Kalabai (PW-2) has stated that
after assaulting and during causing injury, appellants abused the victims.
21. Witnesses namely Soberan Dhobi (PW-3) and Govind Dhobi (PW-
4) though they were not an eye witness but have stated that the appellants
had used filthy language. Except the interested witnesses, no independent
witnesses have supported that the appellants had called injured persons by
their caste name or they had abused in the place of the incident that was a
public place. Thus, it is clear that neither the quarrel took place due to caste
or the appellants had intentionally insulted or intimidated the injured
persons.
22. The trial Court has also convicted the appellants with the help of
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act on the ground that the offence
proved against the appellants is punishable for more than 10 years but as
discussed above, in this case, offence proved against the appellants is under
Sections 324/34 and 325/34 of IPC and the appellants are liable for
punishment under Sections 324/34 and 325/34 of IPC (for two counts). The
offence under Section 324 of IPC is punishable upto 3 years and offence
under Section 325 of IPC is punishable upto 7 years. Thus, the offence is not
punishable upto 10 years. The appellants are not liable to be punished with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14819
9 CRA-11541-2022
the aid of Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act.
23. The appellants conviction for the offence punishable under
Sections 294 and 307 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of SC &
ST (POA) Act is hereby set aside and sentence for these offences is quashed.
The appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324
with the help of Section 34 of the IPC and for section 325 r/w 34 in two
counts.
24. Each appellants shall sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with
fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 324 r/w
34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- (for each count i.e. 2 counts) for the offence punishable under
Section 325 r/w 34 of IPC and in default of depositing the fine amount, they
shall further undergo R.I. for 3 months for each counts (i.e. 5,000/- + 5,000/-
+ 5,000/-)
25. The substantial jail sentence shall run concurrently and in default
of depositing the fine amount, the appellant shall suffer the jail sentence
consecutively. The fine amount, if any, deposited before the trial Court shall
be adjusted in the fine amount imposed by this Court. Previous detention
period in this case shall be adjusted in the substantial jail sentence.
26. As per the record of the trial Court, appellant No.1 Bihari Rajput
was in judicial custody from 08.07.2016 to 26.08.2016, appellant No.2 Man
Singh Rajput was in judicial custody from 08.07.2016 to 19.08.2016 and
appellant No.3 Hotilal Rajput was in judicial custody from 08.07.2016 to
12.08.2016 and after passing of the judgment i.e. 16.11.2022 till today, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14819
10 CRA-11541-2022
appellants are in custody.
27. With the above modification the appeal partially allowed.
28. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with a
copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.
29. The copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned jail authority to
inform the appellants.
30. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal stands disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
AT
