Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chirangya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
1 CRA No. 823-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 6th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 823/2015
CHIRANGYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
..........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Ms. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sonal Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
.............................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
23.01.2015 passed in S.T. No. 129/2014 by II Additional Sessions Judge,
Barwani, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred for short "IPC") for committing murder
of his father Puta and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.1000/- with usual default stipulation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
02. Prosecution story, as having emerged during trial, briefly stated, is
that complainant Chunnibai (PW-1) was residing in Village - Bhandarda under
jurisdiction of Police Station - Silawad, Dist. Barwani with her husband Puta
and her two sons - appellant Chirangya and Thusya (PW-3). On 04.08.2014, her
husband Puta has withdrawn money from Chikhlya Society of his wages. At
about 1.00 P.M., he has gone to village Palsud for marketing along with his son
appellant Chirangya. In the evening after sunset, her husband Puta (deceased)
along with her son Chirangya returned to home. Appellant Chirangya was
demanding money from his father Puta (now deceased) which he refused. On
this, appellant Chirangya was saying that "vkt eSa ckck dks ek:axkA" (today he
will beat Baba). At about 08:30 P.M., deceased Puta was inside the house,
sitting on cot was taking dinner. Meanwhile, appellant Chirangya armed with
Rumna (handle of Bakkhar/plow, a wooden object) came there and with
intention to kill the deceased, hit him on his head from backside which caused
bleeding injury in his head and he died on the spot. At that time, deceased Puta
and grandson Chamriya, (PW-2) were in the house. When other son of
complainant Chunnibai, Thusya (PW-3) returned to home, she narrated the
incident to him and thereafter intimation of the incident was given to Sarpach
Premsingh and Gorakhsingh Patel.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
03. In night at about 9:00 P.M., Sarpanch Premsingh on mobile phone
gave information about the incident to Police Station - Silawad where
information was taken down as Ex.P/8. After that SHO Anokhsingh Sindhiya
(PW-9) along with Assistant Sub-Inspector Khedkar, Head Constable Nana
Patidar (PW-11), Constables Sanjay, Balvir and Gajrajsingh reached village
Bhandarda where they found dead body of Puta on cot in his house with the
bleeding injury on his head. At the instance of Chunnibai (PW-1) Dehati Nalshi
which was ascribed by SHO Anokhsingh Sindhiya (PW-9). Merg (Ex.P/10)
was registered. Dehati Nalshi (Ex.P/1) was sent to Police Station - Silawad
through Head Constable Nana Patidar (PW-11) where Head Constable
Mohansingh Chouhan (PW-10) registered the FIR (Ex.P/19) on Crime No.
112/2014 under Section 302 of IPC and investigation was undertaken by SHO
Anokhsingh Sindhiya (PW-9). Saffina form (Ex.P/11) was issued on 05.08.2014
in the presence of witnesses and Naksha Panchayatnama of dead body
(Ex.P/12) was prepared wherein bleeding injury on backside of head of
deceased was noted. SHO Anokhsingh Sindhiya (PW-9) at the instance of
complainant Chunnibai (PW-1) prepared spot map (Ex.P/13) and also seized a
bloodstained Rumna (handle of Bakkhar/plow), size 2 ft. with 1" pointed part
along with bloodstained soil and plain soil and prepared seizure memo Ex.P/14.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
During investigation, dead body of Puta was sent to hospital of Silawad for
conducting autopsy. Dr. Yogesh Achale (PW-8) on 05.08.2014 conducted
autopsy on dead body where report is Ex.P/6. Statements of Thusya, Chunnibai,
Balibai, Premsingh, Gorakhsingh, Keriya, Tukdiya, Jhetriya, Bechan,
Chamariya, Ashok Khedkar, Nana Patidar and Balvir Singh were recorded.
After near about a month on 04.09.2024, appellant Chirangya was arrested and
arrest memo Ex.P/16 was prepared. Bloodstained soil and plain soil along with
clothes of the deceased were sent for FSL examination to FSL, Rau. Query
report (Ex.P/7) was obtained from Dr. Yogesh Achale (PW-8) wherein doctor
mentioned that injury found on the head of the deceased could be caused by
seized wooden handle of plow which was sufficient to cause death of the
deceased.
04. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barwani, who after completing formalities under
Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred for
short "the Cr.P.C.") committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
Charges under Section 302 of IPC were framed and read over to the appellant,
who abjured the guild and claimed to be tried.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
05. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 11
prosecution witnesses including complainant Chunnibai (PW-1), Dr. Yogesh
Achale (PW-8) and investigating officer Anokhsingh Sindhiya (PW-9). Apart
this, documents Ex.P/1 to P/21 were also marked in evidence. The incriminating
circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were brought to the notice
of the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The
appellant either denied the same or claimed innocence. He has taken a defence
that his father Puta had returned from market in drunken condition and on the
road anywhere he fell down in the influence of liquor and sustained head injury.
He has been falsely implicated by the police, however, the appellant choose not
to produce any evidence in defence. The learned trial Court on the basis of
evidence brought before it, vide the impugned judgment convicted and
sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove for committing murder of his
father Puta.
06. Challenging the conviction and sentence, it is submitted that the
learned trial Judge has committed a grave error of law and facts in convicting
the appellant. He has not properly appreciating the material evidence brought
on record. It is further submitted that Chunnibai (PW-1) along with other
material witnesses have turned hostile, but the same along with other material
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
infirmities in prosecution case have been ignored. On these submissions, learned
counsel for the appellant urges this Court to allow the appeal and set aside the
conviction and sentence. In alternative limb of arguments, learned counsel for
the appellant has further submitted that the incident took place near about 11
years back. Appellant suffered incarceration of more than 11 years. He is
suffering incarceration since 05.09.2014. From the prosecution story, it is
apparent that there was some altercation between appellant and the deceased on
demand of money by the appellant and refusal by the deceased. He was not
having any intention to kill the deceased, therefore, his conviction cannot travel
beyond the offence under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and, therefore, if this Court
does not acquit him, his sentence may be reduced to the period already
undergone.
07. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted
that the learned trial Court on careful appreciation of evidence available on
record has come to the finding of guilt of the appellant. The contention is that
even though Chunnibai (PW-1) has been declared hostile, but in cross-
examination she has clearly stated that it is the appellant, who has assaulted the
deceased Puta and has denied suggestion that when deceased Puta came to the
house from market, he was having head injury. Learned counsel further submits
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
that the statement of Chunnibai (PW-1) is also corroborated by the
corresponding injury found on the head of the deceased in P.M. report which
inspires confidence, therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any factual
or legal error in convicting the appellant for murder of the deceased. He further
submits that vital part head has been chosen for assault which clearly makes out
intention of the appellant to kill the deceased, hence this is a clear case of
murder under Section 302 of IPC and not of an offence of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under Section 304 of IPC. On these contentions, he prays
for dismissal of the appeal as devoid of any substance.
08. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also
carefully perused the record. The question for consideration is whether the
learned trial Court has committed any factual or legal error in recording
conviction and sentence against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC ?
09. Dr. Yogesh Achale (PW-8), who has conducted autopsy on dead
body of deceased Puta has stated that on 05.08.2014 at about 11:20 A.M. he has
examined dead body and found the following injuries:-
(i) One lacerated injury on the occipital region of the deceased; size 3"
x 1" x 4" wherefrom bone was visible.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
(ii) One injury below right eye to the extent of cheek which was
abrasion, size ½" x ½".
09.1 He has further stated that in internal examination, he found
occipital bone fractured and in all the three layers of head, blood was found
present, however, no other injury was found. Injuries were ante-mortem in
nature and were caused within 24 hours of the examination. Due to head injury,
brain was damaged and there was profuse bleeding. Head injury which proved
fatal was caused by hard and blunt object. He has given P.M. report Ex.P/6
bearing his signatures and after examination. He has also preserved clothes of
the deceased and handed over to the concerned constable for FSL examination.
He has further submitted that on 11.08.2014 from Police Station - Silawad the
letter raising query with seized Rumna (handle of Bakkhar/plow) was sent to
him for opinion. He has answered query by report Ex. P/7 that the injury found
on the body of deceased can be caused by object sent with the query letter.
Though he has admitted that he has not mentioned about the nature of death of
the deceased, but looking to the grievous nature of head injury found in Post
Mortem report, it is apparent that it was ante mortem and was sufficient to cause
death, therefore, it can be conclusively held that the death of the deceased was
homicidal in nature. Nothing adverse has come out in cross-examination of this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
witness, therefore, the testimony of Dr. Yogesh Achale (PW-8) cannot be
disbelieved and we are of considered view that the injury was caused by Rumna
(handle of Bakkhar) which was seized from the spot. Finding in this regard
given by the learned trial Court is well reasoned and is upheld.
10. In the aforesaid premises, the next question for consideration would
be whether the learned trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for
causing death of deceased Puta and whether the same falls within the category
of murder under Section 302 of IPC. Prosecution has examined Chunnibai (PW-
1), wife of deceased and mother of appellant, who in paragraph - 2 of
examination-in-chief has stated that her husband on the date of the incident
came to the house in drunken state and fell down on the ground which caused
bleeding injury in his head and thereafter he died. Appellant Chirangya was not
present in his house and his husband has not been assaulted by anyone. On this,
this witness was declared hostile and after she was examined by the prosecution
in para-7, she has admitted that when deceased was assaulted by appellant
Chirangya, he was taking food on cot and the incident was witnessed by
Chamriya (PW-2). In para-8 of cross-examination, she has further supported the
prosecution case by stating that appellant has killed Puta. She has denied the
suggestion that when the deceased returned from the market was already having
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
head injury. She has further suo motu made a statement that appellant has
assaulted twice by Rumna (handle of Bakkhar/plow) to the deceased. Thus even
though this witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution, but in cross-
examination, the facts which have come on surface in cross-examination, her
testimony cannot be discarded in toto and the incriminating part of the
testimony which supports the prosecution case and is corroborated by other
evidence on record can be relied upon as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph-6 of the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of M.P. (1991) 3
SCC 627. That part of her testimony inspires confidence and found reliable as it
is supported by injury found on the head of the deceased in P.M. report (Ex.P/6).
Even though Chamriya (PW-2), a child witness has turned hostile, but the same
cannot be a ground to throw whole of the prosecution case overboard. Thusya
(PW-3), who is other son of the deceased and younger brother of the appellant
has stated before the Court that he was informed by Keriya on phone that
appellant Chirangya has killed the deceased by assaulting with Rumna (handle
of Bakkhar) which has caused injury on the backside of head of the deceased.
When he came to the house, he found that Chunnibai (PW-1), her mother was
present in the house and dead body of his father was lying on cot and nearby the
cot, Rumna (handle of Bakkhar) was also lying on the ground. He has further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
stated that Chunnibai (PW-1) told him that appellant Chirangya has killed Puta.
Even though some contradictions and omissions have occurred in cross-
examination, but testimony of this witness Thusya (PW-3) which is supported
by statement of Chunnibai (PW-1) and also corroborated by P.M. report, cannot
be disbelieved as it supports prosecution case.
11. It is taken note of that Chunnibai (PW-1) is mother of appellant and
Thusya (PW-3) is younger brother of the appellant. They had no axe to grind
against the appellant by falsely implicated him in the case of murder of Puta.
This also inspires confidence in the prosecution case as narrated and supported
by the prosecution evidence available on record.
12. In view of the aforesaid, we do not have the slightest hesitation in
coming to the conclusion that it was the appellant, who caused death of the
deceased Puta. Finding recorded by Court below in this regard is found correct
when tested on the anvil of appreciation of evidence, therefore, also finds stamp
approval of this Court. The next question arises as to whether the act of the
appellant can be brought within category of culpable homicide amounting to
murder?
13. As per Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC - Culpable homicide
is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the instant case, it
has also come on record by way of statement of Chunnibai (PW-1), Chamriya
(PW-2) and Thusya (PW-3) that on the date of incident, deceased Puta has
withdrawn some money of his wages from Chikhlya Society and appellant, his
elder son was asking for money for which he refused. Thereafter appellant was
enraged on this refusal from his father deceased Puta and by using Rumna
(handle of Bakkhar) assaulted him on his head which caused bleeding injury
which ultimately proved fatal. Thus, in the instant case it cannot said that the
appellant was having an intention to cause death of his father or he has taken
undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Apart from this, it is also proved
that appellant dealt with a single blow on the head of the deceased in a sudden
impulse of anger, thus, indicating that the act done by him was without any
premeditation and it was in the heat of passion because of sudden altercation
which took place between the appellant and deceased due to refusal of giving
him demanded money. It also transpires that the appellant has not taken any
undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or unusual manner, therefore, the act of
the appellant stands covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
Therefore, in our considered opinion, the appellant was liable to be punished
u/s. 304 Part 1 of the IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC.
14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Stalin vs. State represented by
the Inspector of Police, (2020) 9 SCC 524, where there was a case of singular
injury by knife, relying upon the catena of judgments modified the conviction of
the appellant from Section 302 of IPC to one under Section 304 Part I of IPC
and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 8 years with
fine of Rs.10,000/-. We are of view that analogy can be derived and applied to
the present case also where a singular head injury caused by wooden log has
been found on the head of the deceased. This is not a case where a lethal
weapon has been used to cause death, coupled with the fact that genesis of the
incident is also trivial in nature. The learned trial Court has not adverted to this
factual and legal aspect of the matter, therefore, the conviction recorded against
the appellant deserves to be modified.
15. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
appellant is modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part 1 of the IPC. We are
of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends
of justice will be served if the appellant is sentenced to period already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32234
undergone i.e. 11 years 02 months along with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of
payment of fine, appellant shall further undergo 3 months RI.
16. The appeal stands partly allowed as mentioned herein-above. Copy
of the judgment be sent by fastest mode to the concerned jail authorities for
compliance and necessary action at their end. Copy of judgment passed by this
Court along with the record of this case be also remitted back to the concerned
Trial Court forthwith for necessary action.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Soumya
