Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ishwar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12895
1 CRA-1109-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1109 of 2024
ISHWAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Virendra Sharma, learned senior counsel with Shri
Jitendra Sharma for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Dy.A.G for the
respondent/State.
Reserved on 07.05.2025
Delivered on 15.05.2025.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
This appeal under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is
preferred challenging the conviction under section 302 r/w section
34 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12895
2 CRA-1109-2024
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of one month's RI in sessions case
No.80/2018 by Additional Sessions Judge, Tarana, district Ujjain.
2. Facts in brief are that appellant Ishwar Singh was
prosecuted under section 302 r/w section 34 & 504 of the IPC with
his father Indersingh and mother Mankunwarbai for sharing the
common intention to commit murder of Bhagwansingh and
intentional insult of Bhagwansingh with intent to provoke breach of
peace and committing the murder of Bhagwansingh on 23.05.2018 at
09.00 a.m in the agricultural filed of deceased Bhagwansingh
situated at village Mor Ka Kheda, P.S Makdon, district Ujjain
regarding which a crime no.171/18 was registered at PS Mor Ka
Kheda, district Ujjain.
3. All the three accused abjured guilt and claimed for trial.
4. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined Ramlal as
PW/1, Charansingh as PW/2, Arjun Gurjar as PW/3, Sushilabai as
PW/4, Kamal as PW/5, Udaisingh as PW/6, Babulal as PW/7,
Kalusingh as PW/8, Jeevan as PW/9, Makhansingh as PW/10,
Chandersingh as PW/11, Sumit as PW/12, ASI Ashok Dube as
PW/13, Sardarbai as PW/14, Udaisingh as PW/15, Banesingh as
PW/16, medical officer Dr.S.S.Daboriya as PW/17, Sub Inspector
N.S.Thakur as PW/18 and ASI Gulabchand Raikwar as PW/19.
5. In examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12895
3 CRA-1109-2024
denied or expressed ignorance regarding the facts and circumstances
appeared against him in the prosecution evidence. He took the
defence of false implication due to enmity of grabbing his
agricultural field. He examined his father Indersingh as DW/1 after
obtaining permission of the Court.
6. Trial Court acquitted Mankunwarbai from all the charges
and the present appellant Ishwarsingh and his father Indersingh
under section 504 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the present
appellant Ishwarsingh and his father Indersingh under section 302
r/w section 34 of the IPC and sentenced as per para-1 of the
judgment. Indersingh died on 18.01.2024 in Central Jail, Ujjain.
This appeal is preferred by Ishwarsingh on the ground that
agricultural land of the deceased and the appellant are adjacent. Due
to the stonewall the dispute arose. A single injury was caused by
means of axe on the head of the deceased. Section 34 of the IPC
does not apply because lathi and axe are agricultrual weapons which
are normally kept by the agriculturists. The incident is not pre-
meditated and there was no existing enmity and the said incident
occurred all of a sudden. At the most it is a case under section 304 of
the IPC. The statement of the witnesses are self contradictory.
There are many variations, contradictions and omissions in the
statement of the witnesses. The independent witnesses of the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12895
4 CRA-1109-2024
did not support the case of the prosecution. The investigation is
tainted and partial. The appellant has no criminal antecedents.
7. Counsel for the State has opposed the appeal and
submitted that trial court has rightly convicted the appellant
Ishwarsingh under section 302 r/w section 34 of the IPC. The blow
of axe on the head of Bhagwansingh was the cause of death which
was inflicted by Ishwarsingh. The conviction of the appellant is
based on the testimony of eye witnesses. The appellant has been
rightly convicted under section 302 r/w section 34 of the IPC and the
minimum sentence has been awarded, therefore, no interference is
called for in the impugned judgment.
8. Perused the record.
9. Trial court has recorded the finding that appellant/accused
Ishwarsingh gave a blow of axe on the head of Bhagwansingh. This
finding is based on the testimony of Sushilabai (PW/4), Jeevan
(PW/9), Sumit (PW/12) and Banesingh (PW/16). Sushilabai (PW/4)
is the wife of deceased who was present at the time of incident at the
place of incident. Sumit (PW/12) is the son of deceased who was
also present at the scene of crime. Arjun Gurjar (PW/3) and
Banesingh (PW/16) were present in their fields whose fields are
adjacent to the place of incident. Their presence in the scene of
crime is natural and all the witnesses have stated that Ishwarsingh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12895
5 CRA-1109-2024
inflicted the injury to Bhagwansingh by axe. The First Information
Report was lodged in the form of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/10) and
Ex.P/10 also corroborated the statement of Arjun Gurjar (PW/3) and
the findings of the trial court are based on proper appreciation of
evidence that appellant/accused Ishwarsingh inflicted injury on the
head of Bhagwansingh by axe. The axe was recovered on the
information of appellant Ishwarsingh and as per the FSL report
Ex.P/26 the blood was found on the axe recovered from the
appellant/accused.
10. The trial court has recorded the finding that the act of the
appellant Ishwarsingh falls within clause-1 of section 300 of the IPC
and exception 4 of section 300 of the IPC does not attract in the case
and concluded that the act of appellant Ishwarsingh was with the
intention of causing death of Bhagwansingh.
11. Dr.S.S.Daboriya, medical officer, district hospital, Ujjain
(PW/17) conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased
Bhagwansingh on 23.05.2018 and he found the deceased was 30
years of age and mentioned in the report Ex.P/20 that an incised
wound (spindle shaped) clean cut over scalp measuring 12 cm. long
and 4 cm. width in centre and 4 cm. deep (extended from frontal
bone to left parietal bone obliquely) was present and Bhagwansingh
died due to comma, extra-dural, sub-dural and intra-celebral
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12895
6 CRA-1109-2024
hemorrhage.
12. Sumit (PW/12) has admitted in para-5 of his statement
that there was no enmity between the appellant and his father.
Sardarbai (PW/14) is the mother of deceased Bhagwansingh and she
also stated in para-5 of her statement that appellant and her family
have common ancestors and due to this they have adjacent land and
share common Med. This witness also admitted that there was no
quarrel or enmity between both the families prior to this incident.
The partition had been effected much earlier and there was a
stonewall dividing the fields of both the parties and appellant
Ishwarsingh has erected stonewall to guard his field. Smt.Sushilabai
(PW/4) is the wife of deceased and she also admitted in para-7 that
appellant and her family share the common ancestors and there was
no enmity between both the families prior to this incident and the
agricultural land of both the families have been partitioned much
earlier and a dispute arose suddenly due to the stonewall as appellant
Ishwarsingh was asking for removing the stones from his land.
13. In the light of above evidence, the possibility of offence
being committed by the appellant Ishwarsingh without pre-
meditation in the sudden fight and in the heat of passion upon
sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out. It cannot be said that the
appellant has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12895
7 CRA-1109-2024
manner.
14. In view of the above we find that the appellant
Ishwarsingh would be entitled to be convicted under section 304
Part-I of the IPC. We are, therefore, inclined to partly allow the
appeal and the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the
IPC is altered to Part-I of section 304 of the IPC.
15. Now come to the question of sentence. It is argued that
appellant/accused was 25 years of old at the time of incident and
now he is of 32 years old. He has no criminal antecedents.
16. State has argued that due to the act of the appellant,
Bhagwansingh also lost his life leaving behind him his wife, minor
children and old aged parents and no one is to look after them,
therefore, rehabilitation of the family members of the deceased
Bhagwansingh was insisted.
17. Considering the statements of both the parties, we reduce
the sentence of appellant Ishwarsingh from life imprisonment to 7
years RI and enhance the fine amount from Rs.1,000/- (one
thousand) to Rs.5 lakhs (rupees five lakhs).
18. The amount of fine shall be deposited by the appellant
Ishwarsingh within one year from the date of his release. On
completing the seven years RI, the appellant be released subject to
furnishing bond to the satisfaction of the trial court that the appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12895
8 CRA-1109-2024
shall deposit the fine amount within one year from the date of his
release. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount within one
year from the date of release, he shall further undergo RI for two
years.
19. On realizing the fine amount, the same shall be paid to
Smt.Sushilabai, wife of deceased Bhagwansingh as compensation.
In case of non-availability of Smt.Sushilabai, the said amount of
compensation shall be paid to Sumit s/o deceased Bhagwansingh.
20. Copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the appellant
through Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Ujjain. Copy of the
judgment shall also be forwarded to Smt.Sushilabai w/o deceased
Bhagwansingh.
21. Supersession warrant be prepared. Record be remitted
back to the trial court for compliance.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
