Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lallu @ Shadanan Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21799
1 CRA-1538-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 6th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1538 of 2021
LALLU @ SHADANAN RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ram Sharan Rathore - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yash Soni - Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Devnarayan Mishra
With the consent of parties, the appeal was being heard in motion
stage.
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred
by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Anuppur, District-Anuppur in ST
Case No.103/2018 dated 08.01.2021 by which the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and
under Section 450 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with
fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21799
2 CRA-1538-2021
2. In nutshell, the prosecution case before the trial Court was that
victim Jamuna Singh on 25.08.2013, at 11:00 pm was sitting in kitchen
of his house and taking dinner. Appellant Lallu @ Shadanan Rathore s/o
Shri Ramjan @ Rupsay Rathore, entered into his house, fired a pistol and
abused him. He sustained the injury in the left eye. His sister-in-law
(Bhabhi) Munni bai (PW-5) was present there. The victim went to Police
Station Jaithari and lodged FIR as Crime No.145/2013, who was sent for
the medical examination, his statement was recorded by Doctor. Further,
the victim was referred to Higher Centre, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,
Medical College, Jabalpur, where operation was conducted. The
appellant was absconding and when arrested, after investigation, charge-
sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the
case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, hence after
commitment, the case was sent for trial before the Sessions Judge.
3. The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 450 and 307
of IPC to the appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for
trial.
4. The trial Court recorded the statement of the prosecution
witnesses and also examined the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
and after hearing both the parties, the trial Court passed the impugned
judgment, hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial
Court has wrongly convicted the appellant. As per the prosecution case,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21799
3 CRA-1538-2021
it is alleged that the appellant assaulted the victim with firearm but the
Doctor had not preserved the swab of the injury and as per the
prosecution case, while operation, a pellets was found but that has not
been sent for FSL examination. The firearm has not been recovered from
the possession of the appellant.
6. Dr. S.K. Khanna (PW-1) and Dr. Parvez Ahmed Siddiqui (PW-
14) who conducted the MLC and operation of the victim have not stated
that any pellet was found in the injury or in the eye, except the eye, no
other part of the body was damaged from the gun shot. Thus, the case is
highly doubtful.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
prosecution tried to put up the case by planting the evidence that Doctor
has given the pellet during the surgery to Devendra Singh Rathore (PW-
4) and further argued that the witness Munni Bai (PW-5) has stated that
by the firearm, the bullets were stuck in the wall, the wall developed
cracks and the fire was so of such intensity that her ears become numb
and appellant assaulting him ran away but as per the Investigating
Officer, no mark of the bullet/pellet were found in the wall and Munni
Bai (PW-5) was not medically examined.
8. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
complainant was harassing to the appellant's sister and appellant and
family members of her sister were opposing to that the appellant has
given evidence against the victim in the Court and there was the previous
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21799
4 CRA-1538-2021
enmity between the parties, hence false case has been made up with the
help of police authorities but the trial Court without considering all these
aspect convicted the appellant, hence the appeal be allowed and
appellant be acquitted.
9. Learned counsel for the State has opposed and has submitted
that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and it is clear that
from injury that was caused by the appellant, the victim's eye was
operated and he has lost a sight of one eye and the firearm was used but
the appellant was absconding, hence firearm could not be recovered and
seized. The appellant could not take the benefit of his own fault by being
absconding and the trial Court has considered all these aspects, hence,
the appeal be dismissed.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
11. Dr. S.K. Khanna (PW-1) has stated that on 25.08.2013 at
12:35, he was posted at Community Health Centre, Jaithari as a Medical
Officer. From police station Jaithari, Jamuna Singh Rathore was brought
for medical examination by Constable No.273 Sanjay and he found
injuries over the left eye and eye lids. Eye was bleeding, eye lid and the
injuries were extended up to whole eye, eye lid and eyebrow. There was
a contusion on the left side of the cheek measuring 2cm x 1cm and it was
also bleeding. The victim told that he was shot and Doctor also stated
that injury was caused within two hours by the firearm. After preliminary
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21799
5 CRA-1538-2021
examination, he referred the patient for CT-Scan and to the
Ophthalmologist, he recovered the towel and vest of the injured and
handed over it to the concerned Constable.
12. In the cross-examination, this witness has clearly stated that he
has not recovered any bullet/pellet from the injury.
13. Dr. Parvez Ahmed Siddiqui (PW-14) stated that on
26.08.2013, he was posted as a Professor in Medical College, Jabalpur
on that date, Constable No.273 Sanjay brought the victim Jamuna Singh
Rathore at 9:00 am as a casualty patient. He along with Dr. Navneet
Saxena examined the victim had found the grievous injury in the corner
of the eye and the eye were fully percolated. He was advised that his eye
has been completely damaged, there is no chance of light and it had to
be removed as there was a danger of pus spreading in the other eye, after
that, the eye was taken out by surgery. The patient was admitted in the
hospital and discharged on 31.08.2013. He had proved the bed head
ticket on 10.10.2013 as Ex.P/16 and OPD receipt is Ex.P/20. This
witness had nowhere stated that he recovered any bullet/pellet from the
eye of the victim. Thus, it is clear that on 25.08.2013, victim suffered
injury and the injury was so serious that his left eye by surgical
intervention was removed.
14. Jamuna Prasad Rathore (PW-2) has stated that at the time of
incident, he was taking food at 11:00 pm, the appellant came there and
fired gun shot and abused him. He suffered the injury in his eye. His
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21799
6 CRA-1538-2021
sister-in-law Munni Bai (PW-5) was present. He immediately went to
the Doctor. He lodged an FIR as Ex.P/5 and he was medically examined
and after that he was referred to Jabalpur Hospital.
15. He has further submitted that on X-ray, he found that there
were many pellets in his body but to substantiate this case, the
prosecution has not examined any expert witness. In para No.18 of the
cross-examination, this witness has stated that the appellant fired by
putting the barrel of pistol on his eye.
16. Munni Bai (PW-5) has also supported the fact that she was
cooking food and victim was taking food in the kitchen. The appellant
reached there and fired gun shot at the victim and on that victim suffered
the injury.
17. Regarding the fact of fire, witnesses Vinod Singh Rathore
(PW-3) and Devendra Singh Rathore (PW-4) have also supported the
fact in the statements and the FIR was lodged immediately.
18. In this case, the Investigation Officer has clearly admitted that
when he visited the house, neither any gunshot marks were found in the
wall of the kitchen nor any other marks of gunshot were found. He has
also not recovered any weapon or pellet from the spot and also admitted
that as per Ex.P/8, Devendra Singh Rathore (PW-4) whom he seized the
pellet, was not the person of the police force. Sushil Kumar Shukla (PW-
13) has lodged the FIR in which, the victim Jamuna Singh Rathore (PW-
2) has clearly stated that the appellant has assaulted him by the firearm.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21799
7 CRA-1538-2021
19. Looking to the fact that there are some gaps and lacunae on the
part of the prosecution that the prosecution had not seized the weapon
from the appellant and the swab was not taken from the injury and not
sent to FSL for presence of nitrate/remains of gunpowder and the pellet
so-called make seized by Devendra Singh Rathore (PW-4) had not been
sent for FSL examination and also not sent to medical expert to verify
the fact whether it had been taken out from the body of the victim or not.
20. In this case, it is clear that the appellant has assaulted the
victim by such an object which gives an impression of firearm and by
that the victim has suffered injuries in his eye and face. As a result, his
surgery was conducted and his left eye was taken out. Thus, he had lost
his one eye.
21. It is also clear that the victim at the time of the offence was
taking food in his kitchen and the appellant with an intention to cause the
offence has trespassed into the house of the victim with preparation to
cause injury but when the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant
had used the firearm, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. for attempt of
the murder as the injury was suffered only in the eye and face. No other
injury was sustained.
22. The victim has suffered the grievous injuries and thus, the
appellant's conviction is converted from Section 450 and 307 of the
Indian Penal Code into 452 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and he is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21799
8 CRA-1538-2021
sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and fine amount of Rs.2,000/-
for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC, for the offence
punishable under Section 452 of IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for one
year with fine amount of Rs.1,000/- in default of depositing the fine
amount, the appellant shall undergo further R.I. for 6 months and 3
months respectively. The substantial jail sentence shall run concurrently
and jail sentence in default of the fine shall run consecutively.
23. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed.
24. The case property be disposed of as per the order of the trial
Court.
25. With the copy of the judgment, the record of the trial Court be
returned back.
26. Pending I.A. No.5553/2025 and I.A. No.2366/2025 shall stand
closed as withdrawn by the learned counsel for the appellant.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
AT
