[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4704
1 CRA-12148-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12148 of 2022
MUNNALAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Gupta, counsel for the appellants.
Shri Nilesh Monore, counsel for complainant.
Shri Rahul Solanki, counsel for the State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12352 of 2022
VINOD AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Gupta, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nilesh Manore, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Rahul Solanki, counsel for the State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1246 of 2023
DAYARAM
Versus
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLCIE STATION RAVTI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nilesh Manore, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Solnaki, counsel for the State.
Heard on: 11.12.2025
Delivered On: 16.02.2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 16-02-2026
19:14:06
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4704
2 CRA-12148-2022
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal appeal nos.12148/2022 and 12352/2022 have been
preferred under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., 1973 being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed in Session Case No.64/2022 by Sessions
Judge, District Ratlam M.P. for setting aside the conviction and sentence
filed on behalf of the appellants/accused persons.
2. Criminal appeal No.1246/2023 (Dayaram vs. State of M.P.) has
been filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 being aggrieved by the
same judgment for enhancement of the sentence of accused persons.
3. The appellants accused persons have been convicted and
sentenced as below:-
Acquitted Default in
Name Convicted U/S I.R Fine
U/s Payment
307 r/w 149 of 3-3
5-5 Rs.500/- For Months
IPC
294 and Years each count R.I.
Munnalal (Two Counts) 506-II of R.I.
IPC 3-3
25(1-B) (B) of 1 Years Rs.1000/- Months
Arms Act, 1959 R.I.
307 r/w 149 of 3-3
5-5 Rs.500/- For Months
IPC
294 and Years each count R.I.
Sonu (Two Counts) 506-II of R.I.
IPC 3-3
25(1-B) (B) of 1 Years Rs.1000/- Months
Arms Act, 1959 R.I.
307 r/w 149 of 3-3
5-5 Rs.500/- For Months
IPC
294 and Years each count R.I.
Banshilal (Two Counts) 506-II of R.I.
IPC 3-3
25(1-B) (B) of 1 Years Rs.1000/- Months
Arms Act, 1959 R.I.
307 r/w 149 of 3- Rs.500/- For 3-3
IPC 294 and 3 Years each count Months
Vinod 506-II of R.I. R.I.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4704
3 CRA-12148-2022
(Two Counts) IPC 3-3
Months
148 of IPC 1 Years Nil R.I.
3-3
307 r/w 149 of Rs.500/- For 3-3
Years
IPC 294 and each count Months
R.I.
Tejabai 506-II of R.I.
(Two Counts)
IPC
3-3
148 of IPC Nil
1 Years Months
R.I.
3-3 3-3
307 r/w 149 of Rs.500/- For Months
Years
IPC 294 and each count R.I.
R.I.
Mamta 506-II of
(Two Counts) 3-3
IPC
148 of IPC Nil Months
1 Years R.I.
3-3 3-3
307 r/w 149 of Rs.500/- For Months
Years
IPC 294 and each count R.I.
R.I.
Pooja 506-II of
(Two Counts) 3-3
IPC
148 of IPC Nil Months
1 Years R.I.
4. Facts of the case are that victims Dayaram (PW-1) and Kalu (PW-2)
and the appellants/accused persons are neighbors. Appellant Munnalal is
uncle of victim Dayaram PW-1 and Kalu PW-2 and appellants/accused Sonu
and Banshilal are the sons of Munnalal and appellant/accused Tejabai is w/o
of Munnalal and accused Mamta and Pooja are the daughters of Munnalal.
There is a dispute regarding the partition of joint property between the family
and in that back drop, the present incident giving rise to the offence
registered at Crime No.359/2021 at Police Station Raoti, District
Ratlam under sections 323, 324, 294, 506-II r/w 34 of IPC occurred at 07:00
PM on 06.11.2021 in front of the house and godown of Dayaram PW-1.
5. The incident occurred when Dayaram PW-1 was standing out side
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4704
4 CRA-12148-2022
of his house after milking. He asked Banshilal why he is abusing his brother
Kalu PW-2. Munnalal entered into the house & armed with sword and
assaulted Dayaram PW-1. Sonu and Banshilal also came with swords and
assaulted on Dayaram when Kalu intervened than all the three accused
persons also assaulted Kalu with swords. Vinod came with pipe and
assaulted Dayaram, Mamtabai w/o Dayaram and Ratanbai, mother of
Dayaram, tried to intervene than Mamta D/o Munnalal, Tijabai and Pooja
caused injured to Mamta and Ratanbai. Sonu and Banshilal also assaulted on
Mamta and Ratanbai. Sonu also assaulted on Piyush. They all hurled abusive
words and caused annoyance. Dayaram PW-1 escaped from the place of
occurrence and rushed to police station. He was admitted to Civil Hospital,
Raoti. Kalu (PW-2) wife of Dayaram namely Mamta and his mother
Ratanbai with Piyush were also treated in the Hospital and further referred to
Govt. Hospital, District Ratlam. During investigation, the accused persons
were apprehended. A sword was recovered from accused Banshilal vide
Ex.P/16 on 10.11.2021, another swords was recovered from accused/Sonu
vide Ex.P/17 on 10.11.2021, a sword was also recovered from
accused/Munnalal vide Ex.P/18 on 10.11.2021, an iron pipe was recovered
vide Ex.P/19 from accused Vinod on 10.11.2021, a wooden stick was
recovered vide Ex.P/20 from accused/Tijabai on 10.11.2021, a wooden stick
was recovered vide Ex./P/27 from accused Mamta on 27.12.2021 and a
wooden stick was recovered vide Ex.P/28 from accused Pooja on
27.12.2021. After completing the investigation, final report was submitted
under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506-II, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4704
5 CRA-12148-2022
25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
6. Charges under Section 148, 294, 307/149 (two counts for attempting
murder of Dayaram PW-1 and Kalu PW-2) and 506-II of IPC were framed
against the accused persons/appellants. Additional charge under Section
25(1-B)(B) of Arms Act, 1959 was framed against accused persons
Munnalal, Banshilal and Sonu.
7. The appellants/accused abjured the guilt. To bring him the guilt, the
prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses including the victim
Dayaram PW-1, Kalu PW-2, Mamta w/o Dayaram PW-3, ASI Prakash
Chandra PW-4, Rahul PW-5, Mangilal PW-6, Medical Officer Dr. Piyush
Mangriya PW-7, ASI K.S. Katara PW-8 and Investigating Officer Lokendra
Singh Thakur PW-9.
8. In examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973, all the facts
and circumstances were either denied or ignorance was expressed. They
pleaded false implication and took the defense that at 07PM on 06.11.2021,
Banshilal, Sonu, Vinod, Munnalal, Pooja, Mamta and Tejabai were at their
house situated at Kumhar Mohalla, Raoti, District Ratlam. Banshi Gurjar was
standing in front of his house, Kalu Gurjar PW-2 was abusing to Banshilal
due to the dispute regarding the land of plot. Abusive words caused
annoyance than Tajabai and family members came out of the house and
Banshi asked Kalu not to repeat the abusive words than Kalu Gurjar and his
brother Dayaram PW-1 went in their house and came with wooden sticks
and assaulted Banshilal. Sonu and Vinod interfered to save Banshilal than
Kalu and Dayaram caused injuries to Sonu and Vinod. Ratanbai also reahced
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4704
6 CRA-12148-2022
their with wooden stick in her hand and hurled abusive words and caused
injuries to Tejabial in her right hand and right ribs. Banshilal, Vinod and
Sonu also sustained injuries. Family members interfered than Dayaram, Kalu
and Ratanbail warned that today they have saved but in future, they will be
killed. An FIR was lodged by Tejabai against Kalu, Dayaram and Ratanbai at
Crime No.360/2021 Ex.D/4 under Section 294, 323, 506 read with Section
34 of IPC at Police Station Raoti, Ratlam.
9. Appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court recorded the
finding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly at about 07:00PM
on 0611.2021 in village Raoti, Police Station Raoti, District Ratlam and at
that time, they were armed with deadly weapons and committed riots. They
caused injuries to Dayaram PW-1, Kalu PW-2 which were fatal to their lives
and also found proved that at that time, Munnalal, Sonu and Banshilal were
armed with swords without having license and convicted and sentenced the
appellants/accused persons as mentioned in para no.3, above of this
judgment. The appellants /accused were also acquitted from the charges
under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC.
10. Challenging the conviction and sentence, criminal appeal
nos.12148/2022 and 12352/2022 have been preferred on the ground that the
learned trial Court has committed error in ignoring the contradictions and
omissions in the oral testimony and a plea of false and fabricated implication
has been raised.
11. Criminal appeal No.1246/2023 has been preferred by victim
Dayaram PW-1 under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 on the ground that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4704
7 CRA-12148-2022
learned Session Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused persons/respondent
no.2 to 8 and inadequate sentence has been awarded ignoring the medical
evidence.
12. Heard.
13. Perused the record.
14. The learned trial Court has recorded the finding in para no.11 that
the injuries were caused on the vital parts on the body of Dayaram PW-1 and
Kalu PW-2. The injuries were bone deep and Dr. Piyush Mangriya PW-7 has
opined that the injuries on the head of Kalu PW-2 is life threatening.
Learned Trial Court has further recorded the finding that though Dr. Piyush
Mangriya PW-7 has not opined that injuries of Dayaram PW-1 were of life
threatening injury but were on the vital parts of the body & was certainly
sufficient to case death in the ordinary course of nature and further recorded
the finding in para no.12 that in the list of witnesses appended with the final
report and in the trial program, radiologist was not mentioned as witness and
it could not be proved that the injuries to Kalu PW-2 and Dayaram PW-1
were grievous in nature, but as per the MLC Ex.P/31 and P/32 prepared by
Dr. Piyush Mangriya PW-7 it is proved that the accused have intention to
cause death of Dayaram and Kalu and the injuries caused by them was
sufficient to case death in the ordinary course of nature.
15. Now, this court is examining the correctness and legality of the
above findings and for this purpose, the Court is re-appreciating the
prosecution evidence.
16. The learned trial Court has referred in para no.15 that the witnesses
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4704
8 CRA-12148-2022
have denied the suggestions that appellants have lodged the report against
them and also referred to the suggestions of the accused persons to injured
Dayaram (PW-1) and Kalu (PW-2) that during investigation they have also
caused injuries to the accused persons. The learned trial Court did not
embarked upon further inquiry whether those answers to the suggestions are
correct or not?
17. Though Kalu PW-2 expressed the ignorance regarding the FIR
Ex.D/4 but Sub Inspector L.S. Thakur PW-9 has admitted in para no.10 that
a cross FIR (Ex.D.4) was also lodged in the police Station Raoti though he
avoided further cross-examination by answering that he did not investigate
that case. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer did not produced before the
trial Court the complete picture of the incident. The medical records of that
case were not brought on record with this case, hence, no further finding can
be recorded. Prosecution has not produced before the trial Court the weapon
of offence and they were not even exhibited in the Court. Investigating
Officer L.S. Thakur PW-9 has stated in para no.7 that he has not even
mention which scale was used to measure the size of the instruments
including the swords that is stated to be seized from the accused. Even he did
not prepare the picture of the swords and even did not mention that handle of
the swords were made of brass or any other metal. When the weapon of
offence were not brought before the Court than the appellants/accused
persons cannot be convicted under Section 148 of IPC nor under Section
251-B(b) of Arms Act, 1959.
18. Dr. Piyush Mangriya PW-7 has given primary treatment to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4704
9 CRA-12148-2022
Dayaram PW-1 and Kalu PW-2. He has specifically stated in para no.10 that
the injury mentioned in MLC Ex.P/32 of injured Dayaram PW-1 were not
dangerous to life and the injuries to Kalu PW-2 mentioned in the MLC
Ex.P/31 may be dangerous to life or may not be dangerous to life.
19. The Court is conscious to the legal position that the injury inflicted
by the accused is simple or minor will not by itself rule out the application of
Section 307 of IPC. The determinative question is the intention or knowledge
of the accused, not the nature of the injury.
20. In this case, the genesis of incident as per Kalu PW-2 is that he
was going to his field from his house and his aunt abused him than he asked
Banshilal who is the cousin of Kalu PW-2 that why his mother is abusing
and due to this dispute got violent and the family members caused injuries to
each other and report of this case was registered as Crime No.359/2021 and
counter case was registered at Crime No.360/2021 (Ex.D/4) at Police Station
Raoti, Ratlam in which the women of the families got involved then it cannot
be inferred that the intention was to cause death of either Dayaram PW-1 or
Kalu PW-2, but the incident was only the result of a spur of moment due to
which the family members assembled and took part in the incident and
caused injuries and the injuries are not to be proved grievous in nature.
21. In the above light, the conviction of the appellants under Sections
148 of IPC and under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC (two
counts), cannot be sustained and the offence committed by the accused
persons/appellants falls within the purview of Section 147 and 324 (two
counts) of IPC only.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4704
10 CRA-12148-2022
22. Accordingly, Criminal appeal nos.12148/2022 and 12352/2022
stands partly allowed and the judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed in Session
Case No.64/2022 by Sessions Judge, District Ratlam M.P. is hereby
modified and the appellants/accused persons are convicted under Section 147
of IPC and 324 (two counts) of IPC.
23. So far as the sentence of the appellant/accused persons are
concerned, appellants/accused persons Munnalal, Banshilal and Sonu have
already undergone approximately three years and 5 months each till date
whereas the appellants/accused Vinod, Tejabai, Pooja and Mamta has
already undergone approximately 06 months, 2 months and 45-45 days
respectively. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, the appellants are sentenced
to the period already undergone with fine of Rs.1000/- each under section
147 of IPC and Rs.1000/- each for each count under Section 324 of IPC. The
fine amount if already deposited shall be adjusted. In CRA No.12148/2022,
the appellants Munnalal, Banshilal and Sonu are in jail and they shall be
released forthwith if not required in any other case subject to deposit the fine
amount. In CRA No.12352/2022, the appellants namely Vinod, Tejabi, Pooja
and Mamta are already on bail, their bail bonds are canceled and sureties are
discharged.
24. So far as CRA No.1246/2023 (Dayaram vs. State of M.P.) is
concerned, the appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the sentence of
the accused persons i.e. respondent no.2 to 8. In light of the above findings,
this Court find no substance in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
25. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of seized
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4704
11 CRA-12148-2022
property stands affirmed.
26. A copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial Court for necessary
information.
27. A copy of this judgment be placed in the record of connected
Criminal Appeals also.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
