Madhya Pradesh High Court
Angar Singh And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 8 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21586
1 CRA-1903-2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1903 of 2001
ANGAR SINGH AND ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Vinod Tiwari - Amicus Curiae for the appellants.
Shri K.S. Patel - Panel lawyer for the State.
HEARD ON:- 24.01.2024 AT JABALPUR SITTING.
POSTED ON:- 08.05.2025 AT INDORE SITTING.
......................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated
21.08.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 2000 by Sessions Judge, East
Nimar, Khandwa whereby appellant No.1 Angar Singh has been convicted
under Section 304-II of the IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I. and a fine of
Rs 2000/- with default stipulations of 3 months R.I. and appellant No.2
Kalıram @ Balram has been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and
sentenced to 3 months R.I. and a fine of Rs 1000/- with default stipulations
of one month R.I.
2. Facts in brief are that appellants/accused were prosecuted under
Section 302 read with Section 34, 294, 506 and 352 of IPC along with one
Kaliram @ Balram for causing murder of Kamal in furtherance of their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21586
2 CRA-1903-2001
common intention and uttering obscene words in public place which caused
harms to Suresh and Mukesh and caused criminal intimidation to Suresh and
Mukesh by threatening them to end their life and assaulted Suresh and
Mukesh.
3. In prosecution story, it was stated that on 31.07.2000 at about 5 PM
when Suresh and Mukesh asked appellant/accused Angar Singh for
misbehaving Mukesh then all three accused persons uttered filthy words and
replied why they cross through their filed. Suresh objected to the language
used by appellant/accused then all the three accused persons came armed
with bamboo stick and chased the Mukesh, Kamal Singh asked not to
indulge in quarrel and tried to mediate. Angar Singh assaulted in the head of
Kamal Singh with bamboo stick. Kaliram @ Balram also caused injuries to
Kamal Singh. Madhu and Omkar tried to mediate and pacified the
appellants/accused, then moved to either place warned the Suresh and
Mukesh that if they passes the Ox from the field then they will be killed. On
01.08.2000 at 10:00 AM Suresh lodged the FIR (Ex.P-4) at Police Outpost
Dhulkot and a Crime No.45/2000 under Section 294, 323 and 506 read with
34 of the IPC was registered against the appellants/accused.
4. Kamal Singh was shifted to District Hospital Burhanpur where he
was examined by Dr. Ramesh Somani (PW-7) a crime was registered at
Police Station-Nimbola. During treatment Kamal Singh succumbed to
injuries at District Hospital Burhanpur on 04.08.2000 and offence under
Section 302 of IPC was added. Panchayatnama Ex P-11 was prepared and
Dr. M.P. Garg conducted the autopsy of Kamal Singh on 05.08.200 at 12:15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21586
3 CRA-1903-2001
PM and opined that the cause of death of Kamal Singh is the Koma due to
injury on brain. After completing the investigation, a final report under
Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was submitted to the Court of JMFC,
Burhanpur and JMFC, Burhanpur committed to the case to the Sessions
Court vide order dated 11.09.2000 in Criminal Case No.597/2000.
5. Appellants/accused abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
Prosecution examined Meera wife of Kamal Singh as PW-1, Suresh as PW-
2, Mukesh as PW-3, Madhu as PW-4, Rakesh as PW-5, Assistant Surgeon
Dr. M.P. Garh as PW-6, Assistant Surgeon Dr. Ramesh Somani as PW-7,
Amla as PW-8, Gulla @ Gulab as PW-9, Anil Singh as PW-10 and ASI
M.K. Raghuwanshi as PW-11.
6. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., appellants/accused
denied the incident and put the defence of false implications.
7. Appreciating the evidence, trial court acquitted Bilar Singh @ Bilor
Singh from the charges and acquitted the appellant/accused Kaliram @
Balram from the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 394, 506
and 352 of the IPC but convicted under Sections 323 of the IPC and also
acquitted the appellant/accused Angar Singh from the charges under Section
302 read with 34, 294, 506 and 352 of the IPC and convicted under Section
304-11 of the IPC and sentenced as per the para-1 of the judgment.
8. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been
preferred on the ground that trial Court erred in relying the testimonies of
Meera (PW-1), Suresh (PW-2), Mukesh (PW-3), Rakesh (PW-5), Amla
(PW-8) and Gulla @ Gulab (PW-9) because their testimonies are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21586
4 CRA-1903-2001
contradictory to each other and has not been corroborated by any
independent witness. All prosecution witnesses are interested and closely
related to deceased Kamal Singh. Deceased Kamal Singh received only one
injury caused by his own companion itself further more receiving the sole
injury by fall could not be hold out.
9. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that quarrel was between the
appellant No.1 and Suresh (PW-2) and Mukesh (PW-3) on account of
passing the cattle. Appellant has no intention to cause the injury to deceased
Kamal Singh.
10. The prosecution evidence has not been accepted for majority of the
offences and same set off evidence cannot be relied for convicting the
appellants/accused in rest of the offences. The evidence on record is not
appreciated properly and this fact has resulted in grave mistake in justice.
Sentence is much too severe and uncalled for defence version ought to have
been accepted. Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and provisions
of Section 360 of the IPC ought to have extended.
11. Heard.
12. Public prosecutor has opposed the appeal and prayed for
conviction and sentence.
13. Perused the record.
14. Trial Court concluded that Kamal Singh sustained injury on his
head and that injury was caused by appellant No.1 Angar Singh by bamboo
stick and that injury proved fatal and due to this injury, Kamal Singh died on
04.08.2000 and this act of appellant No.1 Angar Singh comes under the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21586
5 CRA-1903-2001
purview of Section 304-11 of the IPC rather than within 302 of the IPC.
15. Trial Court also recorded the findings in para-44 that
appellant/accused Kaliram @ Balram and Bilar Singh did not share the
common intention with Angar Singh. Trial Court also record the finding that
Kaliram @ Balram also caused the voluntary injury to Kamal Singh.
16. First of all, this Court is appreciating the cause of death of Kamal
Singh and Dr. Ramesh Somani (PW-2) who examined the Kamal Singh on
01.08.2000 at 3 PM states that he found a lacerated wound on the head with a
size of lx1/2x1/2 inch caused by hard and blunt object and advised the X-
Ray for ascertaining the nature of injuries and Dr. M.P. Garg states that
when he conducted the autopsy of Kamal Singh on 05.08.2000 at 12 PM then
he found that below the stitch wound there was a hematoma of size 2.5x2
inch and occipital bone of skull was fractured and the bone was pressed.
There was a crack in the bone which was crossing to the neck and was on 1
and the upper layer (dura mater) of the brain was ruptured and there was a
clotting a blood and there was a clotting of blood in brain.
17. Trial Court found proved that in the background of injury to Kamal
Singh there was a quarrel between Mukesh and Angar Singh regarding
passing of cattle through the fields of Angar Singh and Angar Singh objected
by warning that this is not the public way. Trial Court has properly
appreciated the defence of non explanation to the injuries on Kaliram @
Balram and his wife and recorded the finding that there was no vissible
injury on the body of Kaliram @ Balram and non-explanation of the injuries
on the body of wife of Kaliram is not fatal to the prosecution version. Suresh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21586
6 CRA-1903-2001
and Mukesh were present at the place of incident with deceased Kamal Singh
so there evidence cannot be discarded that they are real brothers and
deceased Kamal Singh was their cousin. Defense of accidental fall of Kamal
Singh is not acceptable in light of direct evidence of Suresh and Mukesh.
18. The basis of theory that Kamal Singh sustained injuries due to
assault of Suresh and Mukesh is not established. Meera Bai (PW-1) claims to
be eye-witness of the incident. She stated in her statement that at the time of
incident she was preparing the food and from the kitchen she witnessed the
incident. Site plan Ex.P-13 supports this version of Meera Bai (PW-1)
because place of incident is in front of the house of Gathiya who is the father
of Suresh and Mukesh and the distance of the place incident from the house
is only 35 to 40 feet from the house of Meera Bai.
19. Trial Court has carefully discussed the report lodged by Kaliram
on 01.08.2000 at 8:30 AM against the Suresh and Mukesh in light of no
visible injury on the body of Kaliram and superficial injury on the body of
wife of Kaliram and trial Court also properly appreciated the testimony of
Rakesh PW-5 and PW-8 and properly recorded the finding that the fatal
injury that caused the death of Kamal Singh was inflicted by Angar Singh on
31.07.2000 and 5:00 PM in Village Bindnapur, PS-Nimbola District
Burhanpur Khandwa and due to which Kamal Singh died on 04.08.2000.
20. Trial Court discussed the nature of offence and in light of Punia vs
State of M.P., 1996 (I) MP WN 119, Narsingh Vs. State of M.P., 1993, (II)
M.P. WN 134, Gangadas @Goda vs State of Haryana, 1994 Cr.L.J 237 (SC),
Omprakash vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 (SC) 642, Jagroop Singh vs
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21586
7 CRA-1903-2001
State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1552, Randheer Singh vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 1982 SC 065, Kulvant Rai vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 01267,
Hariram vs State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 185, Jawahlal vs State of Punjab,
AIR 1983 SC 284, Khanjan Pal vs. State of U.P., 1990 (II) M.P WN 123 SC
and convicted the appellant/accused Angar Singh under Section 304-II of
IPC.
21. Considering the genesis of incident, use of single blow with a
bamboo stick, nature of force that ruptured the skull of Kamal Singh taken
together justify the finding of trial Court that act of appellant/accused Angar
Singh falls within the purview of Section 304-II of IPC. Accordingly the
findings of trial Court convicting the appellant/accused under Section 304-II
of IPC does not call for interference, Conviction of appellant/accused Angar
Singh under Section 304-II of the IPC is affirmed.
22. Conviction of appellant/accused Kaliram @ Balram under Section
323 of IPC is also affirmed.
23. Trial Court in para Nos.58 and 59 of the judgment has considered
the plea of prosecution and defence regarding sentence and emphasizing on
the appropriate sentence passed 7 years R.I. in Section 304-II of the IPC. It is
prayed that incident occurred 24 years ago and appellant/accused Angar
Singh has undergone 159 days of custody upto the date of trial Court
judgment and thereafter he has been in custody for a period of about 4
month. Thus a total period of custody comes to about 9 months. Looking to
the absence of criminal antecedent of the Angar Singh and his 30 years of
age at the time of incident his sentence may be reduced for the period of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21586
8 CRA-1903-2001
sentence already undergone.
24. Considering the rival submissions regarding prayer for altering the
sentence already undergone does not find approval. Looking to all the
circumstances the sentence of 5 years R.I. will serve the end of justice.
Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and confirming the conviction of
Angar Singh under Section 304-II of IPC and of Kaliram @ Balram under
Section 323 of IPC, sentence of imprisonment of appellant/accused Angar
Singh under Section 304-II of the IPC is reduced from 7 (seven) years R.I. to
5 (five) years R.I.
25. No interference is required in sentence of Kaliram @ Balram as he
has already undergone the sentence awarded.
26. Sentence of fine does not call for interference.
27. Supersession warrant be prepared and Angar Singh be sent to
custody to undergo remaining jail sentence.
28. Let copy of the judgment be provided to the appellants. The record
of the trial Court be remitted back.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
DPS/akanksha
