Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhuriya And Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50379
1
I N T H E H I G H C O U RT O F M A D H YA P R A D E S H
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. SHARMA
ON THE 7TH OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.671 of 1999
Bhuriya @ Bhurelal @ Rameshwar & Another
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
..................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Tej Kumar Modh - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Deepak Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
..................................................................................................
Reserved on : 26.09.2025
Pronounced on : 07.10.2025
..................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 10.02.1999 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Balaghat, in Sessions Trial No.45/98. By the said judgment, the
learned trial Court found appellant No.1 Bhuriya guilty for commission of
offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo two
years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.50/-, while appellant No.2
Gunnilal was found guilty for commission of offence under Section 109 of
IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs.50/-, with default stipulations.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50379
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the agricultural land of
complainant Neelamchand (PW-1) and accused Bhuriya is adjacent to each
other, on account of which the cattle of Neelamchand often used to enter
the field of Bhuriya, giving rise to dispute between them. On the date of
incident i.e. on 25.12.1997, while the appellants were cutting the tree, the
complainant Neelamchand objected. Thereafter, the accused Gunnilal
caught hold of Neelamchand and his son Bhuriya dealt 3-4 axe blows, as a
result Neelamchand fell down. When Neelamchand did not return,
Tularam, went in search for him and found him in injured condition.
Thereafter, Tularam called Babulal and told him to bring water. Thereafter,
the complainant narrated the incident to Tularam and Babulal. After
completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that
the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence
beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the statements of prosecution
witnesses are full of contradictions and omissions. Looking to the injuries
the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out against appellant
No.1. Further, the appellant No.1 is below 21 years of age and thus,
entitled to be released on Probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the
findings of judgment of conviction and submitted that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent and cogent
evidence. The minor contradictions or omissions pointed out by the
appellants are natural and do not go to the root of the matter. The medical
evidence corroborates the ocular version and clearly establishes that the
injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon and were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, thereby attracting the provisions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50379
of Section 307 of IPC. As regards the plea for extending the benefit of
probation, it is contended that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is of a
grave nature and does not warrant release of the appellant on probation
merely on the ground of age.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. From the testimony of Neelamchand (PW-1), it is clear that
accused Gunnilal caught hold of him and Bhuriya @ Bhurelal inflicted axe
blows on his head and ear. However, Babulal (PW-2) has stated that the
injured disclosed to him that he was assaulted by Bhuriya and nothing said
about accused Gunnilal, however, the prosecution was not questioned him
about the presence of accused Gunnilal and this has also not been clarified
during his cross-examination. Such discrepancies are minor in nature and
do not affect the core of the prosecution case because he was not an
eyewitness. Apart, Tularam (PW-3) deposed that on inquiry the
complainant named Bhuriya and Gunnilal as the assailants. In the medical
evidence, ten injuries were found on the complainant which corroborates
the incidence, and the variance as to the weapon used is not of such of
importance as to discredit the testimony of the injured witness. Thus, the
evidence produced by the prosecution clearly establishes that the
complainant was injured in the incident and it was the accused persons
who had inflicted the injuries. Thus, the learned trial court has properly
appreciated the evidence of witnesses and not committed any error in
disbelieving their evidence.
7. It has been noticed that appellant No.2 Gunnilal has been
convicted for the offence under Section 109 of the IPC, however, the
evidence, ocular and medical, shows direct participation of this appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50379
in assaulting the injured as he caught hold of both the hand. In view of the
above, offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC is attracted to the facts of
the present case. The involvement of appellant Gunnilal is clear that he
made an attempt to cause death of injured, thus in the opinion of this court,
would attract Section 307 of the IPC. Since the State has not challenged
the conviction of appellant Gunnilal under Section 109 of the IPC which
addresses the punishment for abatement by providing assistance that helps
in commission of the offence. The conviction under Section 109 of the IPC
must be allowed to stand.
8. Therefore, the conviction of appellants-accused persons is
hereby affirmed.
9. With regard to the argument that appellant No.1 Bhuriya is
stated to be below 21 years of age at the time of the incident, and thus
should be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. In this
regard, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, permits release of young
offenders on probation, the same is generally applicable to offences which
are not of a grievous or heinous nature. In the present case, complainant
received (total 8) multiple injuries in hand, jaw and ear also and blood was
oozing out from both the nostrils caused by an axe, clearly indicating an
intention to cause death. In view of the seriousness of the offence and the
manner in which it was committed, this court is of the view that the
appellant No.1 Bhuriya is not entitled to the benefit of probation.
10. Having regard to the age of appellant No.1 at the time of the
incident and the fact that the appeal has been pending since 1999, the
sentence imposed by the trial court is hereby modified, and the period of
imprisonment is reduced to 6-6 months rigorous imprisonment, and fine
amount imposed on appellant No.2 is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- and appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50379
No.1 to Rs.1,000/-. Out of the amount of fine, Rs.5,000/- be paid as
compensation to the victim. In default of payment of fine, the appellants
shall undergo further imprisonment of 2-2 months. The period already
undergone by the appellants in custody shall be set off against the sentence
of imprisonment awarded.
11. This criminal appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
12. Record of the Trial Court, if available, alongwith copy of this
judgment shall also be sent back to the Trial Court concerned.
Certified copy as per rules.
(B.P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
