[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dama vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16652
1 CRA-11421-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11421 of 2024
DAMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Shukla - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
JUDGMENT
(DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT)
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Shri Vivek Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant instead of
pressing I.A. No.1793/2026, which is first application under Section 389(1)
of the Cr.P.C./Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1 Dama S/o
Najju, prays that this appeal be heard finally.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.1793/2026 is dismissed as not pressed and with the
consent of the parties, this appeal is heard finally.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973/Section 415 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
is filed by convicted appellant No.1 Dama and appellant No.2 Mindo being
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16652
2 CRA-11421-2024
aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhaisdehi, District Betul (M.P.) in S.T.
No.29/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dama and another ), whereby each
of the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment in lieu
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
of fine
302 r/w 34 I.P.C. R.I. for life Rs.5,000/- R.I. for 6 months
323 r/w 34 I.P.C. R.I. for 3 months Rs.500/- R.I. for 1 month
4. The prosecution story, in short, is that, appellant Dama Ivane resides in
front of the house of complainant Sukko Bai. Appellant Dama lost his
daughter a month back and since then, he had a doubt that complainant's
husband Dileep was involved in black magic. On that account, there was a
feeling of heartburn. On 21.03.2019, in the evening, when complainant
Sukko Bai was at her home, her husband Dileep had gone to the village. At
about 6 p.m., she heard cries of her husband, then she and her daughter Ritu
came out of the house and saw that Dama was beating Dileep with a lathi and
was also abusing him. When Ritu had gone to intervene, Dama's juvenile son
and wife Mindo came out and had an altercation with Ritu, daughter of
complainant Sukko Bai. It is alleged that Mindo Bai and her juvenile son had
beaten Ritu, as a result of which, she sustained injuries in her right leg.
5. A report was lodged. Dileep and her daughter Ritu were taken to the
hospital for treatment in a 108 ambulance. On the report of complainant
Sukko Bai at Police Chowki situated outside the District Hospital, Betul, FIR
case crime No.18/2019 was registered under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16652
3 CRA-11421-2024
the IPC. Dileep and her daughter Ritu were subjected to medical treatment.
Later on, at Police Station Jhallar, District Betul, the actual FIR case crime
No.77/2019 was registered and the investigation was carried out. On
01.04.2019, upon death of Dileep, merg was registered, Naksha
Panchayatnama (Ex.P-2) was prepared and after post-mortem vide Ex.P-3,
dead body was handed to the relatives vide Ex.12.
6. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
deceased Dileep died after 10 days of the incident. On medical examination,
PW-11 Dr. Anand Malviya stated that he had examined Dileep Parte at
District Hospital, Betul. There was one lacerated wound measuring 5 x 1 x 1
cm. To ascertain the nature of injuries, he had advised for an X-ray and
orthopedic checkup. Injuries were caused within 24 hours by hard and blunt
object. This witness had prepared the MLC report of Dileep as contained in
Ex.P-18.
7. It is submitted that PW-11 Dr. Anand Malviya further stated that on the
same day, he had also examined injured Ritu, daughter of Dileep Parte and
found that there was an abrasion on her right leg measuring 3 x ½ cm. Her
upper cloth from the arm was torn and Ritu was complaining of pain in her
left hand. This witness had prepared the MLC report of Ritu as contained in
Ex.P-19. This witness further stated that the injuries caused to Ritu were
simple in nature. Thus, it is submitted that the present being a case of single
injury, which resulted in death of Dileep, the conviction of the appellant
No.1 Dama be altered from one under Section 302 to Section 304 of the IPC
and appellant No.2 Mindo be acquitted of all the charges.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16652
4 CRA-11421-2024
8. Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn, supports the
impugned judgment and submits that no interference is called for in the
same.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, PW-14 Dr. Surendra Kumar Kushwah had carried out post-mortem
on the body of deceased Dileep and found that there was a partially dried
wound measuring 5 x 1 cm. There was a scar mark on his left cheek
measuring 6 x 3 cm. This witness stated that Dileep died because of
cardiopulmonary arrest on account of head injury. In cross-examination, this
witness admitted that the said injury was 12 days old. He also admitted that
the abrasion on the cheek had already dried.
10. When all these facts are taken into consideration, then it is a case of
sudden altercation. As far as appellant No.2 Mindo, wife of Dama, is
concerned, there was no common object and therefore, her conviction under
Section 302/34 of IPC cannot be sustained. A simple injury has been
attributed to appellant No.2 Mindo as was caused by her in an altercation to
Ritu, daughter of Dileep. There is no allegation against Mindo Bai of causing
any injury to Dileep. As per the prosecution story, it is clear that when Ritu
had gone to intervene, then juvenile son of Dama and his wife Mindo Bai had
come and they started having a scuffle with Ritu. Thus, it is evident that
appellant No.2 Mindo was not involved from the inception in causing any
injury to Dileep. She had no common intention. Therefore, her conviction
under Section 302/34 of the IPC is set aside. Appellant No.2 Mindo Bai is
acquitted of the charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC. However,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16652
5 CRA-11421-2024
conviction and sentence of appellant No.2 Mindo under Section 323 of IPC is
maintained.
11. As far as appellant No.1 Dama is concerned, his case will fall under
Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. Accordingly, his conviction is altered
from one under Section 302/34 of IPC to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and
and he is directed to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with a
stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for 6 months in default of payment of
fine amount.
12. So far as conviction of appellant No.1 Dama under Section 323/34 of
the IPC is concerned, that is not sustainable, inasmuch as, there is no
allegation against appellant No.1 Dama to have caused any injury to Ritu or
to Sukko Bai along with his wife Mindo and his juvenile son. Therefore,
conviction of appellant No.1 Dama for offence under Section 323/34 of the
IPC is set aside.
13. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part and
disposed of. The impugned judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhaisdehi, District Betul (M.P.) in S.T.
No.29/2019 is modified to the extent indicated above. The record of the trial
Court be sent back. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
