Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bajarilal Masram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61446
1 CRA-9445-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 27th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9445 of 2024
BAJARILAL MASRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Shukla- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.25098 of 2024, which is an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the appellant- Bajarilal Masram.
2. Accordingly I.A. No.25098 of 2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, case is heard
finally and disposed of.
4. Appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.03.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niwas, District Mandla in S.C.
No.68/2020, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the
appellant as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61446
2 CRA-9445-2024
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
Life R.I for one
302 I.P.C. Rs.3,000/-
Imprisonment year
R.I for six
201 I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years Rs.2,000/-
months
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that contrary to the
prosecution story if evidence of post-mortem doctor (PW-9) taken into
consideration then PW-9 Dr. Amritlal Kol who had conducted post-mortem
noted that there was a hematoma on the left hand side, there was a lacerated
wound on the left side and there was another lacerated wound on the left
hand side. In the post-mortem report (Ex.P-8) doctor has noted that first
injury was a hematoma on left parietal region of skull, second injury was
lacerated wound on left side of frontal region of the skull bone deep and third
injury was lacerated wound on occipital region of skull bone deep, all
injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Cause of death is mentioned as
excessive blood loss within six to twelve hours of the post-mortem.
6. Thus, it is submitted that all the injuries were caused on the left side
of the skull which could have been caused in a single blow and in fact as per
the prosecution story given by Fago Bai wife of the appellant and mother of
the deceased, she stated that Bajarilal is her husband, she has two children,
one son is Omkar who died and then there is a girl Shivvati. Omkar was
married. Omkar has three children and Omkar had deserted his wife for last
three years. Then she turned hostile but as per FIR it has come on record that
PW-1 who is the author of the FIR i.e. Fagu Bai Masram had stated that on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61446
3 CRA-9445-2024
31.05.2020 they were sleeping after having their food. A dispute was going
on with Omkar on account of partition of land. She had lodged report against
Omkar on earlier occasion also.
7. At about 11:00 pm, Omkar armed with an iron baka, kicked the door
and started abusing her husband when her husband had kicked a danda on his
hand as a result of which baka had fallen down.
8. When these facts are taken into consideration and the evidence of
PW-9 Dr. Kol is corroborated then there being a single blow it is evident that
there was no intention to cause death and therefore, case will fall under
Exception (4) to Section 300 of IPC. Thus, in the light of the judgment of
Supreme Court in Jugut Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9SCC 520 , so
also in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Kariman Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC Online SC 607 , there being
sudden fight and incident taking place when Omkar deceased being an
aggressor and in self defence Bajarilal had hit a danda which caused injury
which turned out to the fatal conviction of the appellant under Section 302
r/w 201 of IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
9. Therefore, it is altered from one under Section 302 to Section 304
Part-II of IPC and accordingly, the appellant is directed to undergo R.I. for
seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and
fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), with default stipulation of 06
months R.I.
10. With the aforesaid modification, appeal is partly allowed and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61446
4 CRA-9445-2024
disposed off.
11. Case property be disposed off in terms of the judgment of the
learned trial Court.
12. Record of learned trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS
