Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhiraj Singh @ Dheeru Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51623
1 CRA-771-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 771 of 2010
DHIRAJ SINGH @ DHEERU PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Atul Dwivedi - PL for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2)
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated
20.04.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sehore in ST
No.148/2009 whereby appellant has been convicted under Sections 307 of
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/- with
default stipulation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial
Court has committed gross error in law in holding that the present appellant
has committed attempt to murder whereas there is single blow on the head
that too caused by hard and blunt object resulting into simple injuries. He
further submits that in the x-ray report ( Ex.P/3) the injury on the head of the
injured was found to be simple in nature. In this regard, learned counsel for
the appellant has submitted that Dr. B.B.Sharma ( PW-1) has admitted in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51623
2 CRA-771-2010
paragraph-4 that no fracture was found on the head of the injured- Ajab
Singh. As per x-ray report, simple injury was found on the head. Therefore,
he submitted that offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
injured Ajab Singh (PW-4) in his statement has not mentioned anything that
the appellant has attempted to commit murder.
4. Upon perusal of the record, it is found that Dr. B.B.Sharma has
admitted in cross-examination that no fracture was found on the head of the
injured. No doubt that injury was caused due to hard and blunt object and
there is a single blow on the head, which is simple in nature. There is nothing
in the statement of the injured/complainant from which, it could be
concluded that a fatal attack was made on him by the appellant. In view of
the above, offence punishable of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is
not made out but there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the injury
was caused by the appellant upon the complainant by means of lathi which is
duly supported by the medical evidence and therefore, offence under Section
323 of IPC is proved against the appellant.
5. In this matter, compromise application ( IA No. 4344/2020) has
been filed by both the parties under Sections 320 and 320(2) of Cr.P.C. This
matter was referred vide order dated 22-09-2025 to the Registrar ( J-II) for
verification of the compromise. The Registrar ( J-II) has submitted its report
on 07-10-2025 and the same appears to be genuine and the parties have
entered into a compromise.
6. The purpose of compromise is to maintain peace and harmony
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51623
3 CRA-771-2010
in the relations. Section 320 of Cr.P.C. deals with compounding of
offence. The offence for which accused was convicted is compoundable
in nature.
7. Considering the compromise entered into between the parties
without any threat, inducement or coercion and in view of the fact that
offence under Section 323 of IPC is compoundable with permission of
the Court, same is granted. As offence under Section 323 of IPC is
compoundable in nature, the instant criminal appeal is allowed on the
basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Therefore, the
appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 323 of IPC on the
basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
8. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be
returned to him.
9. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
10. Let a copy of this order alongwith the record of the Trial Court
be transmitted to the Trial Court concerned for information and
necessary compliance.
11. Appeal is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
PG
