Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra @ Happu Chaudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20893
1 CRA-13198-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13198 of 2023
JITENDRA @ HAPPU CHAUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anand Mohan Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Shrivastava - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Shri Anand Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant instead of
pressing I.A. No.24813/2023, which is first application under Section 389(1),
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Jitendra @
Happu Chaudhary, prays that this appeal be heard finally.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.24813/2023 is dismissed as not pressed and with
the consent of the parties, this appeal is heard finally.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed by the convicted appellant - Jitendra @ Happu
Choudhary being aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.04.2023 passed by the
learned Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Katni, District Katni (M.P.) in
S.T. No.26/2021 ( State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jitendra @ Happu
Choudhary and others), whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20893
2 CRA-13198-2023
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of additional
R.I. for 3 months.
4. Shri Anand Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that other co-accused persons Rajendra Choudhary, Vardani Choudhary and
Ajay Chaudhary were convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC on four counts
and each of them were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months and fine of
Rs.500/- with default stipulation of additional imprisonment of 15 days.
Since during trial they had already remained in the jail for more than the
period of sentence awarded, they have not filed any appeal.
5. It is further submitted that the appellant is innocent. The incident took
place at a spur of moment. There was a cross case also filed by the appellant
party against the complainant party. Reading from the evidence of PW-9 Dr.
Sunita Singh, it is pointed out that on external examination, she found that
there was a single injury on right hand side of the head which is a lacerated
wound measuring 4 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm caused by hard and blunt object. Death
had occurred within 12 to 24 hours. During postmortem, it was found that
there was fracture in the head, as a result of which there was subdural
clotting which was 4 x 3 cm. PW-9 Dr. Sunita Singh gave an opinion that
cause of death was head injury which was caused within 12 to 24 hours.
Postmortem report is Ex.P-20 contained in 3 pages is signed by her from 'A'
to 'A' part. This witness in her cross-examination admitted that except for
one injury on the right hand side of head, there was no other injury found on
the body of deceased Arun. Thus, it is submitted that it is a case of single
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20893
3 CRA-13198-2023
injury.
6. He further submits that PW-6 Smt. Phool Bai Choudhary admitted in
her cross-examination that there was friendship between the appellant and
the deceased and they were visiting each other. She also admitted in her
cross-examination that Arun had asked for water. When she came back after
taking water, then she saw Arun lying in blood pool.
7. It is also pointed out that PW-1 Surendra Chaudhary, who is an injured
witness, admitted that when he had reached the place of incident along with
uncle Akash Chaudhary, then he had seen Arun Chaudhary. He asked Arun
Chaudhary, who was in a blood pool, as to what had happened, then Arun
Chaudhary informed him that there was some altercation with Happu, as a
result of which he had hit him with a lattha. Thus, it is pointed out that
evidence of PW-1 Surendra Chaudhary and PW-6 Smt. Phool Bai Chaudhary
is corroborated by evidence of PW-9 Dr. Sunita Singh, who had conducted
postmortem on the body of deceased and since incident took place at a spur
of moment without any premeditation, there was no intention to cause death,
therefore, case will fall under Section 304-II of IPC.
8. Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn,
supports the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and submits that
there are two other injured persons too, namely, Surendra Chaudhary and
Akash Chaudhary.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, as far as other injured persons are concerned, their MLC was carried
out by Dr.Sunita Singh (PW-9) and Dr.Abhishek Choudah (PW-14). There
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20893
4 CRA-13198-2023
were abrasions, which were all simple in nature. As per PW-9 Dr. Sunita
Singh, there was a single injury on the head of deceased Arun. This fact is
corroborated by deceased Arun himself in his oral declaration given to
Surendra Chaudhary (PW-1) that on some altercation, Happu had hit him
with a lathi on his head. Thus, when these facts are taken into consideration
and read in conjunction with the evidence of PW-6 Smt. Phool Bai
Chaudhary, who admitted that the complainant party and the accused party
were having friendly relations and were having regular meetings, then an
injury which turned out to be fatal, caused by way of single blow, without
there being any intention to cause homicidal death of deceased, therefore,
case will fall within the ambit of Section 304-II of IPC. Accordingly, the
conviction recorded by the trial Court vide impugned judgment is modified
from one under Section 302 of IPC to that under Section 304-II of IPC and
the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years
instead of life imprisonment with fine amount as imposed by the trial Court.
Other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment shall remain intact.
10. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part to the
extent indicated above and is disposed of. The case property be disposed off
in terms of the judgment of the trial Court. Record of the trial Court be sent
back. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
