Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambagas Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24771
1 CRA-15850-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 17 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 15850 of 2023
RAMBAGAS RAIKWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2835 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RAMBAGAS RAIKWAR
Appearance:
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Heard on I.A. No.15776/2024, which is second application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Rambagas Raikwar.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.15776/2024.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.15776/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals are heard
finally.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24771
2 CRA-15850-2023
5. These appeals are filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.11.2023
passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Tikamgarh in SCATR No.60/2021 whereby appellant has been convicted under
Section 302 of IPC, while being acquitted under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and has been sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of six months R.I.
6. It is submitted that brief facts of the case, as per persecution story, are that on
29.03.2021 complainant Bhagwati Prajapati lodged a report at Police Station
Baldeogarh, Tikammgarh to the affect that on 28.03.2021 at about 11:30 pm she
and her husband Chintole and grandson Balram were at home. Some boys from the
village came asking for firewood for the purpose of Holi. All three family
members came out and her husband Chintole had given two logs of wood to the
boys who were asking for it. When the boys were returning, Rambagas Raikwar,
who was standing there, asked for a piece of Tatiya (use as a shield to the main
gate) and when Chintole refused to give him a Tatiya, then Rambagas lifted a
piece of wooden log lying there and had hit Chintole on his head, as a result of
which he started bleeding. It is further alleged that Rambagas had given another
blow and thereafter he had pushed Chintole, as a result of which Chintole had
fallen down on floor. They had picked up Chintole and made him lie on a caught.
As a result of these injuries, Chintole died. Rambagas ran away towards
Bhitarwar. Due to night, they could not report the matter immediately. She had
called her son Bhagirat, Kishori and Rajaram who are working in Delhi narrating
the whole story. Her grandson had called on dial 100 but he could not connect. On
her intimation Merg No.09/2021, Ex.P-1, was registered at Police Station
Baldeogarh and on the basis of the merg intimation, police had registered case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24771
3 CRA-15850-2023
crime No.119/2021 under Section 294, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act,
investigated the matter, filed a charge-sheet. Appellant abjured his guilt, trial was
concluded and appellant is convicted and sentenced as above.
7. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that no case
under Section 302 of IPC is made out, even if prosecution story is taken to be
correct as it is. Dispute had occurred all of a sudden and it will be a case under
Section 304 of IPC. There was no intention to cause death. Incident took place at
the spur of the moment.
8. It is also submitted that appellant is innocent, he has been falsely indicted. It is
an admitted fact that PW-1, Bhagwati, had not taken her husband to the hospital
for treatment and kept him at home. She did not call any doctor nor informed any
of the neighbourers. There is contradiction in the testimony of PW-2, Balram, as
to the place of the incident and, therefore, appellant be acquitted of charges under
Section 302 and appeal be allowed.
9. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, in his turn,
submits that presence of the appellant and act carried out by the appellant is
nowhere contradicted. It is evident from the record that incident took place in
presence of PW-1, Bhagwati Prajapati, and PW-2, Balram. Therefore, there being
eye witness on account, no indulgence is called for.
10. It is submitted by Shri Manas Mani Verma that State has also filed appeal
under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of
sentence and praying that acquittal from Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is illegal
and contrary to law, therefore conviction be maintained under Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST Act.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record.
PW-1, Bhagwati Prajapati, has supported prosecution case and has stated that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24771
4 CRA-15850-2023
when Chintole refused to give Tatiya to Rambagas on the ground that his crop is
standing and if he gives his Tatiya then animals may destroy his crop, Rambagas
started abusing Chintole. Rambagas had picked up a lathi which was lying at the
place of the incident and had hit deceased twice.
12. In cross-examination she has admitted that she does not know her own age
and the duration of her marriage. She admitted that her daughters and sons are
already married. Appellant is known to her. Dharmu Raikwar, is father of the
appellant. Appellant are four brothers, appellant is staying at a distance of one mile
from her house. She admitted that there was no prior dispute with the appellant.
Several people visit her house asking for firewood. She admitted that her husband
was Sarpanch. Bhitarwaha and Majhgua combines to form a panchayat.
13. In cross-examination, she admitted that after beating of her husband
Rambhagas had pushed him, as a result of which he had fallen on the floor.
14. PW-2, Balram, another eye witness has supported the evidence of PW-1 in
part, therefore, he was declared hostile and leading questions were put to him. In
cross-examination nothing substantial has been made out.
15. PW-13, Dr. Vikram Singh, conducted postmortem on body of Chintole s/o
Butaiya, aged about 68 years, along with Dr. Rajendra Gautam, Dr. Arun Kori. He
found that there was an abrasion on right shoulder measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
Two incisor and one canine on the left side were broken. Chintole was bleeding
and was smelling of alcohol. He also found swelling on the parietal region
measuring 0.5 cm x 1.00 cm. There was a wound 2 cm below the swelling
measuring 0.6 x 1.2 cm. Doctor opined that all the injuries were antemortem,
death had occurred within 18 hours of postmortem. Cause of death was clotting in
the head.
16. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that at the time of postmortem
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24771
5 CRA-15850-2023
deceased was smelling of alcohol. He stated that the blood which was coming out
along with the foam was also smelling of alcohol. He admitted that if a person falls
from some height, then such injuries can be sustained by said person.
17. Thus, when evidence of Dr. Vikram Singh is taken into consideration along
with the eye witness account of PW-1 and PW-2, then as far as incident is
concerned, defence counsel could not obtain any material to dispute occurrence of
the incident.
18. FSL report Ex.P-29, makes a mention of blood found on the wooden log
recovered at the instance of the appellant Rambagas Raikwar on 30.03.2021. It's
origin and group could not be determined because quantity was not sufficient.
19. When these facts are taken into consideration, then in the light of the
judgment of Supreme Court in Pratap Singh Alias Pikka Vs. State of Uttarakhand,
(2019) 7 SCC 424, we are of the opinion that since there was no intention to cause
murder and the incident took place at the spur of the moment, the incident
appeared to have occurred upon a sudden quarrel without any pre meditation in the
heat of passion and also without offender taking undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner as is also held by Supreme Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh vs Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another (AIR 1977 SC 45) , murder will be
reduced to culpable homicidal.
20. Thus, when these facts are taken into consideration, coupled with the fact
that there were no intention to cause death, we are of the opinion that appellant's
act will not fall under Section 302 but under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and,
therefore, we modify the conviction from one under section 302 to 304 Part-II of
IPC as it being a case of single injury, in the light of the judgment of M.P. High
Court in Surjan Singh Vs. State, 2003 CrLJ NOC 233 (MP) , so also in the light of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24771
6 CRA-15850-2023
the judgment of Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Delhi State (Govt.
Of NCT Of Delhi), (AIR 2003 SC 3716) .
21. Same is the ratio of Pratap Singh (supra) that in absence of premeditation
and in a sudden fight, it will be a case of culpable homicide and not of murder.
Therefore, conviction under Section 304 Part-II is upheld. There is no criminal
history against the appellant. While maintaining the conviction, sentence is
altered to Section 304 Part-II and he is directed to undergo 7 years R.I. with fine
amount as imposed by the trial Court.
22. Accordingly, appeal filed by he appellant is partly allowed.
23. So far as, State appeal is concerned, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is
invoked when a person not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with
imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing
that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such
property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life
and with fine.
24. In the present case, learned Trial court has specifically dealt with this issue
and has also discussed that prosecution could not prove that the appellant on the
casteist basis had caused such incident.
25. As discussed above, it is clear that the quarrel has suddenly taken place
and prosecution failed to bring the fact that appellant was well knowing the caste
of the victim, hence prove that the appellant was knowing that the victim is a
member of the schedule caste, is not proved.
26. Accordingly, State appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
27. Case property be disposed of as per the orders of the trial Court.
28. Record of the trial Court be sent back.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24771
7 CRA-15850-2023
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
MTK
