Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Marko vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60285
1 CRA-2127-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 24th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2127 of 2023
ANIL MARKO
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yash Soni - Deputy Advocate General for respondent/ State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard
finally.
2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment
dated 15.12.2022, passed by learned Third Additional Session Judge,
Nainpur, District Mandla (M.P.), in Session Trial No.48/2020, whereby, the
appellant - Anil Marko has been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment in
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
lieu of fine
302 I.P.C. R.I. for life Rs.2000/- R.I for 3 month
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60285
2 CRA-2127-2023
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case of sudden
fight. Allegation is that Anil Marko had given a single blow during the
sudden altercation and therefore, it being a case of single blow and Anil
Marko himself being the informant of the incident, the conviction is likely to
be altered from one under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code to 304 Part II of
IPC and accordingly, prayer is made to alter the conviction.
4. Shri Yash Soni, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-
State opposes the prayer and submits that the lathi is recovered at the
instance of appellant Anil Marko contains same DNA profile as was obtained
from the shirt and lower of the deceased Sehdev. Thus, it is submitted that
DNA report (Exhibit P/34) points out towards the guilt of the appellant Anil
Marko and prayer is made not to interfere with the judgment.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, Prakash Parte is P.W.1. He is son of the deceased Sehdev Parte. He
states that the incident took place in front of the house of Anil Marko, Gram
Panchayat Janwani. According to him, four days prior to the incident
deceased Sehdev has lended a sum of Rs.6500/- to Anil Marko and when he
asked for that money then altercation took place. Thus, P.W.1 Prakash Parte
corroborate the fact that incident took place at the spur of the moment. He
also admits in para 14 that he is not an eye witness and he had not seen the
incident. He is a hearsay witness.
6. P.W.2 Krishna Bai Parte stated that Sehdev was her father-in-law and she
also narrated the story of altercation on account of return of money which
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60285
3 CRA-2127-2023
was allegedly lended by Sehdev to Anil Marko. In her case diary statement
she has not narrated this money transaction. She admits that the day on
which the incident took place there was a religious program in the house of
Anil Marko. She also admits that for last six- seven years deceased Sehdev
was residing with Anil Marko and there was no dispute between Anil and
deceased. She admitted that on some occasions her father-in-law and Anil
Marko were consuming alcohol.
7. P.W.3 Ram Bai Marko is wife of Anil Marko. She stated that Sehdev was
her brother-in-law. For last eight years Sehdev was residing with them in
village Junwani. She states that after Pooja they had a day long program of
feast and all the persons had consumed alcohol. People were bringing
utensils but Sehdev had not brought his utensil. Thereafter, what happened
is not known to her. She was declared hostile.
8. P.W.4 Umesh Dhurve informed that Anil Marko had visited his Kirana
shop and said that Sehdev was lying in a grievous condition and therefore,
aske him to called dial 100, then this witness had dial 100. This witness
stated that he has no other information about the incident. He was declared
hostile and leading questions were put to him.
9. P.W.5 Sandeep is a Police Constable who had received seized material
from CHC Nainpur vide Exhibit P/16.
10. P.W.6 Sunita is the Patwari who has prepared spot map.
11. P.W.7 Jagdish Mishra stated that though Sehdev was resident of his
village but for last several years he was residing with his in-las at Junvani
Tola. This witness is hearsay witness as he stated as per the version of son
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60285
4 CRA-2127-2023
of sehdev i.e. Prakash Parte. He is also witness of memorandum of Anil
Marko (Exhibit P/9). However, he states that he had not read Exhibit P/9
and police personnel had obtained his signatures on blank paper.
12. P.W.8 Mitesh Dhurve has also turned hostile and has not supported
prosecution case.
13. P.W.13 Dr. Ankit Jaiswal who had conducted postmortem and found
fracture of occipital bone of head and the wound was full of blood. In his
opinion death had occurred within 15 hours of postmortem and it was caused
by some hard and blunt object.
14. Thus, it is evident that present is a case of single injury which was
caused on account of sudden altercation where both the parties were under
the influence of alcohol and therefore, there being no premeditation or
intention to cause death especially when Sehdev was residing with the
appellant for the last 07-08 years, the conviction cannot be upheld under
Section 302 of IPC as the present case will fall under Exception (4) to
Section 300 of IPC and, therefore, in the light of the judgement rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kariman Vs. State of Chhattigarh
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 607 , conviction of the appellant is
modified and altered to that of Section 304 Part II of IPC
15. Accordingly, appellant is directed to undergo R.I. for 07 years for the
offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand), with default stipulation of 06 months R.I.
16. With the aforesaid modification, appeal is partly allowed and disposed
off.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60285
5 CRA-2127-2023
17. Case property be disposed off in terms of the judgment of the learned
trial Court.
18. Record of learned trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
mrs. mishra
