Madhya Pradesh High Court
Motilal Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 September, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
1 CRA-8206-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 17th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8206 of 2024
MOTILAL RAJAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms.Indu Pande - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
This appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused being aggrieved of
the judgment dated 05.7.2024 passed by the learned Fourth Additional
Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in S.T.No.37/2022 [ State
of M.P. Vs. Motilal Rajak and another ] whereby appellants, Motilal Rajak
and Manju @ Manoj Rajak, have been convicted for offences under section
302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment each and fine of
Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to suffer additional
rigorous imprisonment of 03 months and under Section 341 IPC sentenced
with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo 07
days of simple imprisonment.
2. In short, prosecution story is that complainant-PW.1(Arti) gave
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
2 CRA-8206-2024
'Dehati Nalsi ' (Exhibit-P/1) on 19.2.2022 at Police Station, Kareli to the
effect that there is a dispute between them and appellants/Motilal Rajak and
Manoj Rajak with regard to boundaries of agricultural fields for last about 4-
5 years. At about 4.00 pm on 19.2.2022 when Arti (PW.1) alongwith her
husband (Ratan Rajak) & her daughter (Khushbu) were going to village
Tiktoli and when they were passing by the house of appellant/Motilal at that
time both the accused persons armed with 'lathi' stopped and abused them.
When complainant party asked them not to abuse them, appellants became
angry and both of them assaulted Ratan Rajak with 'lathi'. When
complainant and her daughter started weeping and shouted, then both the
accused persons threatened to kill them and thereafter they ran away. Ratan
Rajak sustained injuries on his right hand elbow, left hand elbow, mid of
wrist, calf muscles of both the legs and blood was oozing out. Since injured-
Ratan became unconscious, complainant dialed 100 for Police help. Then
Police vehicle reached at the spot and took injured-Ratan to the Government
Hospital, Kareli.
3. 'Dehati Nalsi' was registered at 0/22 under sections 341, 294, 307
& 506/34 of IPC. From Government Hospital, Kareli injured-Ratan was
referred to District Hospital wherefrom he was further referred to Medical
College, Jabalpur for treatment. Injured was admitted to Medical College,
Jabalpur, where during treatment he expired. Thereafter, postmortem was
conducted by the Doctor (PW.10-Govind Prasad Jhariya) and report Exhibit-
P/18 was prepared. The case was investigated, FIR (Exhibit-P/24) Crime
No.164/2022 was registered.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
3 CRA-8206-2024
4. During investigation accused were arrested, spot map was
prepared, 'lathis' were seized from the possession of accused as per
disclosure statements under section 27 of the Evidence Act and blood stained
& sample soil collected and were sent for FSL examination and report in this
regard Exhibit-P/31 was received. After completing investigation charge-
sheet was filed under sections 341, 294 and 302/34 of I.P.C.
5. When accused were charged for offence under sections as
mentioned above, they pleaded innocence and sought trial.
6. After prosecution evidence when accused were examined under
section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the prosecution evidence and stated that they
are not guilty but have not produced any evidence.
7. Against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned trial Court, this appeal has been filed on the grounds
that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There
are material contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence. There
was previous animosity, therefore, there was motive of complainant to
falsely implicate the appellants. The Police failed to record the dying
declaration of the deceased, although he was conscious. Death of deceased
occurred on account of loss of blood. There is no injury on the vital parts of
body of deceased. While the incident is stated to be of 19.2.2022, deceased
expired on 22.2.2022. Therefore, prayer is made to allow the instant appeal
and acquit the appellants of the charges, for which, they have been convicted
and sentenced, as stated above. At the time of final hearing, as an alternative
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
4 CRA-8206-2024
prayer, it is also submitted that if the prosecution evidence is believed, then at
the most, case would fall under section 304 Part-II of IPC and not under
section 302/34 IPC. The appellants have already remained in jail for more
than 03 years, which would be substantial punishment in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
8. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Government
Advocate for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and
prays for dismissal of this appeal.
9. We have considered the arguments and perused the record.
10. Prosecution has examined wife of the deceased as PW.1 who has
given vivid description showing how due to previous animosity both
the appellants stopped them and assaulted the deceased-Ratan. Cross-
examination of this witness starts from paragraph 4 to 10, wherefrom
it is seen that inspite of long cross-examination of this witness, the
defence has failed to elicit any answer on account of which it can be
held that false report was lodged by PW.1 wife of deceased against the
accused persons or that incident did not take place. Regarding previous
animosity on account of boundaries of their fields it cannot be said that
the case is false. The only requirement is that evidence is to be
scrutinized minutely. Even otherwise, animosity is a double edged
weapon. If it can be a reason for lodging of false report, then it can
also be a reason for assaulting deceased-Ratan by appellants/accused
persons. It is worth mentioning here that it is a well settled principle of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
5 CRA-8206-2024
law that family of the deceased would be the last persons who would
name the innocent person as a culprit, and falsely implicate innocent
by leaving the actual culprit to go scot-free. It is pertinent to refer to
decision in State of U.P. v. Shobhanath , (2009) 6 SCC 600 wherein
Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed the view in paragraph 30 as below:-
"30. So far as the dying declaration of the deceased is
concerned, the same apparently was not recorded either by
the police officer or by the doctor. There is some doubt
about making of such dying declaration by the deceased and
therefore, the dying declaration said to have been made by
the victim was not correctly relied on by the High Court. But
even if the said dying declaration is taken out of purview of
the evidence on record, even then the statements of the
eyewitnesses can under no circumstances be doubted and
held as untrustworthy. We find no reason as to why the close
relatives of the deceased would try to rope in someone else
as the murderers of their near relation and give up the actual
accused. It is against the human conduct. In a case of murder
the near relations would make all endeavour to see that the
actual culprits are punished."
11. PW.2 (Khushbu Rajak), daughter of the deceased, has also
supported the prosecution case like her mother (PW.1-Arti) and defence has
failed to demolish her evidence by way of cross-examination.
12. PW.4- Ramjee Rajak, who is another eye witness, has supported
the prosecution case and has stated in his examination-in-chief that incident
of appellant assaulting the deceased had occurred before him, although in
paragraph 4 of his cross-examination this witness has stated that he did not
interfere in the quarrel which took place. But only on account of the fact that
this witness did not try to save deceased, it cannot be held that he is not an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
6 CRA-8206-2024
eye witness. Because different people react differently in same situation as
has been held in the case of Bahadur Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2014) 6 SCC 639 it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph 11 as under:-
"11. Babu Lal was intercepted and attacked by the appellants
armed with deadly weapons and on seeing the same, PW 7
Shanti Lal and Shiv Narayan shouted at them and they were
threatened not to come near lest they would also be killed
and on account of fear they did not attempt to rescue Babu
Lal at the time of occurrence. In fact, they also witnessed the
attack made by the assailants on servant Bhanwar and in
such circumstances, the conduct of PW 7 Shanti Lal in not
going near his brother Babu Lal during the occurrence due to
fear is quite natural and the contention raised by the
appellants cannot be accepted. The other contention that
non-examination of Shiv Narayan affects the prosecution
case is also devoid of merit. PW 7 Shanti Lal withstood the
lengthy cross-examination and nothing could be elicited to
discredit his testimony. We are satisfied that the testimony of
PW 7 Shanti Lal is natural, trustworthy and credible and has
rightly been relied on by the courts below."
13. PW.6- Ramswaroop is also an eye witness to the incident.
Though Prosecution has declared him as partly hostile but he has
supported the prosecution case by narrating that appellants assaulted the
deceased and caused injuries.
14. Although PW.5-Dhanraj has turned hostile, who is a witness to
memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act and seizure memo, but
only on this count the prosecution case cannot be doubted, as it is not a case
of defence that Investigating Officer had any personal motive to implicate
the present appellants, and on the contrary law is that evidence of Police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
7 CRA-8206-2024
Officer should be believed like any other person's evidence. In this regard it
would be worth referring to the decision in the case of Karamjit Singh Vs.
State (Delhi Administration) , (2003) 5 SCC 291 wherein it is held that
evidence of Police Officer is to be believed like any other witness. There is
no law, unless corroborated by any other independent witness, evidence of
Police Officer cannot be accepted. The presumption that person acts honestly
applies as much in favour of a police personnel as of other persons and it is
not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good
grounds. (See.para 8)
15. PW.12-Dr.Aditi Dhurve, who had conducted medical
examination of the deceased, has stated that when injured-Ratan was brought
to the Hospital, he was unconscious and had following four injuries:-
(a) Injury No.1 - Lacerated wound (cut-torn injuries) on the
right hand elbow of injured and there was fracture on right
hand bone.
(b) Injury No.2 - Lacerated wound (cut-torn injuries) on the left
hand elbow of injured and there was fracture in the bone of
hand.
(c ) Injury No.3 - Tibia bone of injured was broken (open
fracture), bone was openly visible from skin.
(d) Injury No.4- Multiple injuries towards front portion of left
leg of injured and there was possibility of bone fracture.
The injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object and MLC
report is Exhibit-P/20.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
8 CRA-8206-2024
16. PW.16- Dr.Shivangi Tomar who had conducted x-ray on the body
of injured (Ratan) has given opinion as per x-ray report (Exhibit-P/25) that
tibia and fibula bone of left leg and fibula bone of right leg were fractured
and radius and ulna bones of left hand as also radius bone of right hand were
fractured.
17. PW.10-Govind Prasad Jhariya, the doctor who has conducted
postmortem and submitted report (Exhibit-p/18) has stated that deceased
sustained following external and internal injuries:-
"External injuries
1. One lacerated wound which was in middle part of left leg
measuring 3 cm x 1 cm, and 'Tibia' bone was visible.
2. Number of lacerated wounds were present towards front
portion and middle part of right leg admeasuring 7 cm x 4
cm. On the upper side in inner part of leg wound
measuring 3 cm X 1 cm was present, and in middle part
measuring 3 cm x 1 cm as also on the lower part of leg
wound measuring 9 cm x 4 cm were present.
3. There was bone fracture near both the wrists. Tibia and
Fibia bones of left leg were fractured.
4. One abrasion over right hip was present measurement of
which 5 cm x 5 cm and just lateral to left eye size 5 cm x
1 cm"
As per opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to
antemortem injuries in both legs & upperlimbs and death occurred on
account of grievous injuries which were caused by a hard and blunt
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
9 CRA-8206-2024
object.
18. PW.14- Assistant Sub Inspector Sadaram Baghel and PW.15-Sub
Inspector Siyaram Singh Parihar have deposed regarding investigation and in
their cross-examination. There is nothing on record, on the basis of which, it
can be said that prosecution case is false.
19. In the case of Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Haryana , (2009) 15
SCC 635 Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 23 & 24 has held as under:-
23. These are some factors which are required to be taken
into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to
the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character
and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special
perspective. The relevant factors are as under:
(a) Motive or previous enmity;
(b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the
moment;
(c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting
the blow or injury;
(d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim
died after several days;
(e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;
(f) The age and general health condition of the accused;
(g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in
a sudden fight;
(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
10 CRA-8206-2024
injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted;
(i) The criminal background and adverse history of the
accused;
(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was
because of shock;
(k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the
accused;
(l) Incident occurred within the family members or close
relations;
(m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the
incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the
deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she
gets proper medical treatment?
These are some of the factors which can be taken into
consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the
accused.
24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only
illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view,
proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the
bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of
the court must be to ensure that the accused receives
appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be
according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of
the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view
while convicting and sentencing the accused."
Therefore, even in case where there is single blow all factors have to
be seen as has been held in paragraph 23 above, like motive, previous
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
11 CRA-8206-2024
animosity, whether incident happened on the spur of the moment, whether
death took place instantaneously, nature of injury, whether quarrel started
without premeditation, nature of assault, where injury inflicted was not
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
20. Therefore, on over all consideration of prosecution evidence it
cannot be held that prosecution case is false but looking to the nature of
injuries and considering the fact that deceased died on the third day of
incident and the quarrel suddenly erupted when deceased and his family
members were passing by the house of appellant/Motilal Rajak, as also
taking into account the weapon used by appellants viz.'lathi' which cannot
be said to be a dangerous weapon in ordinary sense and further taking into
consideration that accused did not assault on the vital parts of the body, the
case of the appellants would fall under Exception-4 to section 300 of IPC
which provides that culpable homicide is not murder, if it is committed
without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden
quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner. Hence, while rejecting the prayer of appellants for
acquittal this appeal is partly allowed and conviction of appellants is
converted from under section 302/34 of IPC to one under section 304 Part-II
of IPC, whereas conviction and sentence of appellants u/s 341 IPC is
maintained. The appellants are sentenced u/s 304 Part-II for rigorous
imprisonment for 07 years each and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in default
of payment of fine amount to suffer additional R.I. of 03 months.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45860
12 CRA-8206-2024
21 . In the result, appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
The disposal of the case property shall be as per the direction of impugned
judgment passed by the trial Court.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
