Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohit Gour vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21221
1 CRA-1706-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1706 of 2025
ROHIT GOUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Mayank Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Satya Pal Chadar - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the objector.
ORDER
With the consent of both learned counsel for the parties, heard finally
at motion stage.
2. Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of
BNSS, challenging the judgment dated 25.01.2025 passed by learned 2nd
Additional Sessions, Judge Begumganj, District-Raisen in ST. No.98 of
2022, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and with fine of Rs.2,000/-, with
default stipulation.
3. Briefly prosecution story is that on 09.03.2022, at about 7:30 p.m. in
the evening, in village Khumari, in front of the gate of complainant,
appellant assaulted Hiralal with axe and thereby caused injury on the right
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21221
2 CRA-1706-2025
side of the chest.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, after referring to testimony of
injured/complainant Hiralal (PW-1), submits that he has turned hostile and
he did not support prosecution story. Further, after referring to testimony of
Shubham (PW-3) and Arti Bai (PW-4), submits that they are also not eye-
witness of the incident. Further, after referring to cross-examination of
aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it is urged that they are not reliable witness
and they have contradicted each other. Therefore, learned trial Court has
erred in convicting and sentencing appellant under Section 307 of the IPC on
the testimonies of Shubham and Arti Bai. It is also urged that in view of
testimony of injured Hiralal, appellant could not have been convicted on the
basis of medical testimony alone. It is also urged that in FSL report, only it is
mentioned that on the axe, allegedly recovered from appellant, blood has
been found. It is not mentioned therein that human blood has been found. On
above grounds, it is urged that appeal filed by appellant be allowed and he be
acquitted of offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State submits
that Shubham (PW-3) and Arti Bai (PW-4) are eye-witness to the incident
and they have supported prosecution story. Further, from FSL report, it is
evident that on axe, recovered from appellant, blood has been found. Thus,
FSL report supports prosecution story. Learned trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced appellant. No interference is required in the same.
Hence, appeal filed by appellant be dismissed.
6 . Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 25.1.2025 passed in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21221
3 CRA-1706-2025
S.T.No.98/2022 has convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 307
of IPC with RI for ten years and with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default
stipulation.
7. Heard and perused record of the case.
8. So far as injuries found on the person of complainant/injured Hiralal
are concerned, from testimony of Hiralal (PW-1), Shubham Gaur (PW-3),
Arti Bai (PW-4) and Dr. Danish Patel (PW-7) along with medical reports
Ex.P/12 to Ex.P/15 and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1), it is clearly established that
at alleged date, time and place, injured complainant, Hiralal sustained
injuries on the chest as found in the medical reports.
9. Now question arises to whether aforesaid injuries have been caused
by appellant/accused ?
10. Perusal of testimony of Hiralal (PW- 1), who is injured and
complainant, reveals that he has turned hostile. He has clearly stated in his
examination-in-chief that nobody assaulted him and he had fell down and
thereby sustained injuries on the chest. Further, he has stated that it is not
correct that Jagdish caught hold him from behind and appellant assaulted him
with axe on the chest. This witness has contradicted his police statement
(Ex.P/3). Further, witness has deposed that it is not correct that he had told
police in his police statement (Ex.P/3) that Jagdish caught hold of him and
Rohit assaulted him with axe on chest. Injured complainant Hiralal has
stated in his cross-examination that there is barbed fencing wire in his house
and it is correct that on account of it being night, he got entangled in the
barbed wires and fell down and thereby sustained injuries on the chest and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21221
4 CRA-1706-2025
Ex.P/1's report was not read over to him.
11. Thus, from Court testimony of Heeralal (PW-1), it is evident that
he has completely denied the prosecution story.
12. Now question arises as to whether Shubham Gaur (PW-3) and Arti
Bai (PW-4) are eye witnesses to the incident and they are reliable witnesses?
13. From examination-in-chief of Shubham Gaur (PW-3), it appears
that he had witnessed the whole of the incident i.e. from the very beginning
till the end but this witness has admitted in his cross-examination that at the
time of incident, he was having food inside his house and his mother Arti Bai
was preparing the food. When he came out of the house, his father was
standing and he was not lying. He had seen the injury on the right side of the
chest of his father. This witness has deposed in his cross-examination that it
is not correct that he did not witness the incident.
14. From examination-in-chief of prosecution witness Arti Bai also, it
appears that she had witnessed the main incident but in cross-examination,
she has deposed that accused Rohit and Jagdish have assaulted her husband
with axe on the chest. It is not the case of the prosecution that both Rohit and
Jagdish have assaulted Hiralal with axe on the chest. Prosecution case is that
it is only appellant Rohit, who assaulted Hiralal with axe on the chest.
Further, Shubham Gaur has not deposed that both the accused persons
assaulted his father with axe on the chest. He has deposed that it is only
appellant Rohit, who has assaulted his father with axe.
15. Prosecution witness Arti Bai has admitted in her cross-examination
that at the time of incident, she was preparing the food inside her house and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21221
5 CRA-1706-2025
there was dark, as there was no light. When she heard sound, then, she came
out of the house and she found that her husband was lying. This witness has
denied that at the spot, accused persons were not present. From cross-
examination of Arti Bai, it is evident that after she came out of her house, she
did not see the accused persons assaulting her husband. She had seen her
husband lying. Further, Arti Bai has deposed in cross-examination that it is
correct that after she came out of the house, only thereafter her son Shubham
had come out of the house and she had told her son Shubham about the
incident.
16. Thus, from testimony of Arti Bai, it is evident that after she came
out of the house, her son had come out of the house and she had informed her
son about the incident and her son did not actually witness the incident.
Thus, on aforesaid point, there is material contradiction in the testimony of
Shubham and Arti Bai.
17. Hence, conjoint reading of testimony of Shubham and Arti Bai
clearly establish that Shubham and Arti Bai are not eye witness to the
incident. Further, in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1), which has been lodged by
injured/complainant Hiralal immediately after the incident, it is also not
mentioned that during incident his son Shubham and wife Arti had come out
of the house and had witnessed the incident.
18. Thus, from discussion in the forgoing paras, in this Court's
considered opinion, prosecution witnesses Shubham and Arti Bai are not eye
witnesses to the incident and they are not reliable and trustworthy. Hence, in
absence of any other evidence, appellant could not have been convicted and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21221
6 CRA-1706-2025
sentenced solely on the basis of testimonies of Shubham and Arti Bai.
19. Further, it is correct that in FSL report, it is mentioned that blood
was found on the axe allegedly recovered from appellant. But in FSL report
(Ex.P/20), it is not mentioned that blood found on the axe is of human blood.
Further, as injured/complainant Hiralal himself has turned hostile and has not
supported prosecution story and Shubham (PW-3) and Arti Bai (PW-4) are
not reliable and trustworthy witnesses. Therefore, appellant cannot be
convicted and sentenced solely on the basis of FSL report.
2 0 . Further, after Dr. Danish Patel has admitted in his cross-
examination that the injury sustained by injured/complainant Hiralal can be
caused if injured comes into contact of barbed wire.
21. Hence, in view of the discussion in the forgoing paras, and having
regard to nature of evidence available on record, in this Court's considered
opinion, learned Trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing appellant
under Section 307 of IPC.
22. Resultantly, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and impugned
judgement is set aside and appellant is acquitted of offence under Section
307 of IPC. Fine, if any, deposited by appellant shall be refunded to him.
23. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and disposed
off.
24. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to concerned jail for
information & necessary action.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21221
7 CRA-1706-2025
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
