[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhagan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1881
1 CRA-1232-2016
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 8 th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1232 of 2016
CHHAGAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amit Mishra - Amicus Curiae for appellant.
Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is filed being
aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.03.2016 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, District Burhanpur (M.P.) in S.T. No.05/2015, whereby appellant
Chhagan has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation of three months rigorous imprisonment.
2. Counsel engaged by the appellant since did not appear for the
reasons best known to him and there is no adjustment request made by Shri
R.S. Patel or Om Prakash Rathore as is evident from the record, we had
requested Shri Amit Mishra, Advocate to act as amicus curiae. After going
through the record, Shri Mishra accepted our request and assisted this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1881
2 CRA-1232-2016
for which we would like to place on record a word of appreciation.
3. Shri Amit Mishra submits that present is a case of single blow and
therefore, there being no intention or motive to cause death, case will fall
under secondly of section 300 of IPC namely "it is done with the intention of
causing loss bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm caused" and it is thus submitted that
the case will fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC and thus, prayer is
made that conviction be altered from one under Section 302 of IPC to
Section 304 Part-I of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Mishra taking this Court
through the evidence of Sunil (PW-10) sole eye witness submits that Sunil is
aged about 10 years, his testimony cannot be believed. As such, it is full of
abrasions, and therefore, in absence of any eye witness account and even
FSL report being not crystal clear, there is need to alter the conviction.
5. Shri B.K. Upadhyay, learned Government Advocate appearing for
respondent/State supports the impugned judgment.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, Sunil is eye witness. Sunil has stated that accused Chhagan is his
grandfather. Name of his father is Nahar Singh. Kesri Bai was his Phuphi i.e.
sister of his father. Six months back in the evening at about 06:00 p.m., Sunil
was playing near the house of Chhagan when her Phuphi Kesri Bai was
returning towards home from the market, then Chhagan had assaulted Kesri
Bai with an axe near her ear lobe towards head. This witness had gone to his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1881
3 CRA-1232-2016
father Nahar Singh and had informed him about the incident and Nahar Singh
came at the spot. Thereafter, Nahar and Sunil had seen Kesri Bai, who was
lying in the blood pool. Chhagan was standing with an axe in his hand.
Accused had entered into a scuffle with Nahar Singh and then he left the
place of the incidence. In cross-examination, several suggestions have been
given, but this child witness has remained firm. His testimony is unrebutted.
7. Dr. Swapnil Vaidya (PW-4) stated that he was working at C.H.C.
Khaknar on the post of Medical Officer on 09.12.2014. Police Constable 343
had brought a 40 years old woman dead body for postmortem. In
postmortem he had found that there was incised wound near the right earlobe
and the head measuring 3x2 inches bone deep. On investigation, it was found
that there was fracture on occipital and mastoid bone, important blood
vessels were cut, blood was present. All the internal parts of the body were
pale. Injury was caused by hard and sharp object. Deceased died on account
of said injury resulting in excessive blood loss, hypovolemic shock and
injuries to the vital parts of brain. A suggestion was given to this witness that
if a person falls on a sharp and hard object, then such injury could be caused,
but Doctor has denied said suggestion. When these facts are taken into
consideration and FSL report (Ex.P-14) is taken into consideration, then
Article-F i.e. axe recovered from accused Chhagan and Article-G i.e. shirt of
Chhagan, both contains human blood besides the clothing of the victim.
Besides this testimony of the sole eye witness Sunil has remained
unrebutted.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1881
4 CRA-1232-2016
8. At this stage, though Shri Mishra places reliance on the judgment of
Supreme Court in Stalin Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police
(2020)9 SCC 524 and submits that in that case also though injury was caused
with a sharp object on vital part, but Hon'ble Supreme Court altered
conviction from one under Section 302 to 304 Part-I of IPC.
9. That fact of the matter is that Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC to
which attention of this Court is drawn by Shri Mishra is not applicable.
Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC states that culpable homicide is not
murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave
and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
10. In the present case, there is no evidence of grave and sudden
provocation. There is no evidence of provocation being given by Kesri Bai or
anybody nearby in the group. There is no material to show that there was any
scuffle or altercation between Kesri Bai and the appellant Chhagan.
11. In the case of Stalin (supra), the facts were different. In that case
though Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was single fatal knife blow,
but since it was occasioned by scuffle which had ensued between the parties
due to exchange of hot words. Taking this fact into consideration that
occurrence took place out of sudden and grave provocation, conviction was
altered from one Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-I of IPC. But in the
present case, there is no evidence of any grave or sudden provocation, there
is no evidence of any scuffle or exchange of hot word, and therefore, ratio of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1881
5 CRA-1232-2016
judgment of Stalin (supra) shall not be applicable to the fact of the present
case, therefore, this criminal appeal fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
sp/-
