[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Takhat Singh @ Takat Singh Tekam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:931
1 CRA-5375-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 7th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5375 of 2024
TAKHAT SINGH @ TAKAT SINGH TEKAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Kumar Naveria, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.14562/2024, which is the first application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.14562/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
heard finally.
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is filed
by the appellant Takhat Singh alias Takat Singh being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 10/05/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:931
2 CRA-5375-2024
Judge, Baihar, Distt. Balaghat (MP) in S.T. No.95/2017 whereby the
learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC
and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.40,000/-
with a default stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for six months. It is
further directed that on recovery of fine, Rs.25,000/- be paid as
compensation to the son of the deceased-Ramdayal.
2. It is submitted that prosecution story, in short, is that on 26/02/2017
at about 8.00 a.m. at Village Chandana, Samota Bai (PW-3) was at her
home. Appellant-Takhat Singh is her son. There was an altercation
between Samota Bai and Takhat Singh, as a result of which Takhat
Singh had pushed Samota Bai and left home. Thereafter he had put
paddy husk lying in the courtyard to fire and had left home. According
to the prosecution's case, deceased-Ramdayal is uncle of Takhat Singh.
He was in his fields and after having altercation with his mother Samota
Bai at home, Takhat Singh had gone to the fields where Gendlal (PW-7)
saw that Takhat Singh had beaten Ramdayal with bricks and stones.
3. According to Gendlal (PW-7), he was working in his fields and
was collecting cow dung cakes when he had seen appellant beating
deceased with bricks and stones. 10-15 persons from village were
gathered including Santosh and Chhotu and they intervened. Villagers
called Dial 100 and Police had arrived and thereafter Ramdayal was
taken to hospital. It is alleged that Ramdayal died because of his
injuries on 04/03/2017. It is submitted that looking to the gap between
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:931
3 CRA-5375-2024
the time of the incident and the death so also the fact that there was no
intention to cause death and, in fact, appellant-Takhat Singh was not in
a fit mental state inasmuch as, as per the statement of Samota Bai (PW-
3), earlier he had an altercation with his mother at home and thereafter
went to the field where it appears that he had an altercation with
Ramdayal who was his uncle resulting in sudden incident, its a fit case to
alter conviction from one under Section 302 of IPC to 304 Part-II of
IPC.
4. Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State,
opposes the prayer and submits that learned trial Court has in depth dealt
with this aspect and has held that looking to the manner in which offence
was committed, it will not be a case under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. Dr.Apeksha
Giri (PW-16) is the person who had first conducted MLC on 26/02/2017
and since Ramdayal died while admitted in hospital on 04/03/2017, had
conducted post-mortem. In the MLC report (Ex.P/21), it is mentioned
that there is history of assaults on 26/02/2017, at 11.00 a.m. patient was
referred from Paraswada to DHB. Multiple lacerated wounds were
present over head approximate size 3x0.5 cm, lacerated wound was
present on frontal head 3x4 cm, lacerated wound on back of head
4x0.5x1. All multiple small lacerated wounds were present on both
parietal regions. Patient was conscious and oriented. Same fact has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:931
4 CRA-5375-2024
been recorded by this witness in her Court statement, however, no dying
declaration of deceased-Ramdayal is available on record, though this
doctor has mentioned that he was conscious and well oriented.
6. Thereafter this witness i.e. Dr.Apeksha Giri (PW-16) conducted
post-mortem and stated that there were several stitched wounds, but, it is
surprising that when the same doctor had conducted MLC, then who
prevented her from writing the number of wounds and how many
wounds were stitched by her or under her supervision, is not mentioned
either in the MLC or in her deposition. This witness opined that on
account of fracture, blood had clotted in the head, as a result of which
Ramdayal's death took place. In her query report (Ex.P/24), this witness
opined that injuries could have been caused with the stones and bricks
which were presented to her for query reporting. In cross-examination,
Dr.Apeksha Giri (PW-16) admitted that though she had referred the
patient for surgical opinion and C.T. scan, but she had neither seen the
surgeon's report nor C.T. scan report. This witness admitted that if
hospital management had not shown the patient to the Surgeon and had
not conducted C.T. scan, then she cannot say that as to why it was not
done. This witness admitted that she does not remember as to whether
there was any blood stain on the stones and bricks which were presented
before her.
7. FSL report (Ex.P/27) reveals that there was human blood on
one of the pieces of bricks i.e. Article 'B-3' besides clothings of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:931
5 CRA-5375-2024
accused-Takhat Singh i.e. Article 'C-1' and on the clothings of deceased-
Ramdayal i.e. Article 'D-2', 'D-3' and soil recovered from the spot i.e.
Article-'E'. When these aspects are taken into consideration, then it is
evident that there are contradictions in the statement recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Gendlal (PW-7) viz-a-viz his statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, he appears
to be the sole eye witness. If the testimony of Gendlal (PW-7) is
believed as such, then firstly, incident took place suddenly, there was no
premeditation and there was no intention to cause death though
knowledge can be inferred that appellant had knowledge that his act may
cause death. These elements will fall under Exception-4 to Section 300
of IPC, therefore, when facts are taken into consideration, then
conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained under Section 302 of
IPC, however, required to be altered into one under Section 304 Part-II
of IPC. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC
is hereby altered to Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Hence, impugned
judgment dated 10th May, 2023 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Baihar, Distt. Balaghat (MP) in S.T. No.95/2017 is
modified to the extent that instead of Section 302 of the IPC, the
appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and he is directed
to undergo R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs.40,000/- with a
default stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for three years . Trial
Court's order to deposit only Rs.25,000/- as compensation in favour of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:931
6 CRA-5375-2024
son of deceased-Ramdayal is modified to Rs.35,000/- to be paid to the
son of decease-Ramdayal as compensation. Other terms and conditions
to remain intact.
8. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant is
allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Record of the trial Court be
sent back immediately. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
9. It is made clear that State will be entitled to recover the fine
amount.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
ts
