[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajkumar @ Baffa on 15 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4108
1 CRA-2328-2023
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 15th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2328 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RAJKUMAR @ BAFFA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Govt. Advocate appearing for appellant/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This criminal appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 10.12.2022 passed by the learned Fifth Additional
Sessions Judge, District Chhindwara in S.T. No.158/2019 whereby,
learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents No.1 to 6/accused
persons from the charges under Sections 307 of IPC and respondents
No.7 to 13 from the charges under Sections 120B, 212 and 216 of IPC.
2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for appellant/State
submits that as per the prosecution story, complainant Raman Singh
Uikey lodged a report at Police Station Mohkhed on 07.08.2019 to the
effect that he was posted as a Constable at Police Line. On 26.07.2019,
he was sent to Chowki Umranala for performing his duty. He was
discharging guard duty at the Chowki on 07.08.2019. Constable 154
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4108
2 CRA-2328-2023
Rajkishore Baghel was present in the Chowki. Along with
Rajkishore Constable 637 Ajay Solanki and Constable 949 Vijay Jat
were on duty. In the Hawalat of the Chowki i.e. Police Station
Mohkhed, in relation to Crime No.223/2019 under Sections 395, 396,
397, 460 of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, eight accused
persons were in the Hawalat under police remand. Names of the accused
persons are Deva @ Devrao, Ramesh @ Rajgari Thakur, Ravi @
Maharaj, Chetan son of Ramesh Gaidhane, Golu @ Shravan Khapre,
Monu Thakur, Rajkumar @ Badda and Anshu @ Bhura Thakur.
3. According to the report of complainant Raman Singh, at about
01:00 hours, Golu @ Shravan Khapre called him from the Hawalat and
said that he wants to freshen up, but there is no water in the toilet. Golu
asked for water when Raman Singh came out of the Chowki, brought
water, opened gate of the Hawalat and was giving water to Golu when
Ramesh Rojgari pulled him in side and twisted his hand and started
beating him along with Golu. When all the other accused came out of
Hawalat, Rajkishore Baghel was caught hold of by other accused
persons and with a view to kill him, they had hit him with a spade and
rod which was lying there. As a result of which, Rajkishore sustained
injury on his head. Thereafter, they started breaking the channel gate
which he had closed with a handcuff. When handcuff was not broken,
then Golu came close to him and took out the keys of the handcuffs and
opened all the handcuffs and ran away. The complainant had sustained
injuries in the left and right hand and prayed for proceedings against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4108
3 CRA-2328-2023
accused persons.
4. It is submitted by Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned
Government Advocate for the State that though the trial Court has
convicted the accused persons under Section 120-B, 224, 353, 332/149,
332/149, but it has not convicted the accused persons under Section 307
of IPC for causing grievous injuries to Rajkishore.
5. On this premise, present appeal has been filed.
6. MLC of Rajkishore is available on record as Ex.P-20. It was
carried out by Dr. Sudhir Kumar Shukla (PW-9). In this MLC, it is
mentioned that its a case of assault, patient semiconscious, wherein
Doctor had found that there was contusion on the rear side of the
head and he had advised X-ray. There was a scratch mark on his left
cheek measuring 0.5 x 0.25 cm. Injured complaint of pain on his right
arm and there was an abrasion on his chest measuring 0.5 x 0.25 cm. He
had advised for X-ray of chest also. However, admittedly there is no X-
ray report available on record.
7. It is also interesting to know that Dr. Shudir Kumar Shukla,
who had prepared MLC on 07.08.2019 at 01:45 a.m., did not mention
either the duration of injury or the colour of the abrasions or the fact that
whether the injuries were simple or grievous in nature. As mentioned
above, there is no X-ray report is available on record as was advised by
the Doctor.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4108
4 CRA-2328-2023
8. At this stage, Shri Manas Mani Verma draws attention of this
Court to NCCT Scan of brain (Ex.P-28), but it is beyond comprehension
that when Dr. Sudhir Kumar Shukla had advised only X-ray, then
without subjecting the patient to X-ray what was the provocation or
need to subject Rajkishor Baghel to NCCT Scan of brain without the
opinion and advice of the doctor. This aspect will be delt with by us
subsequently.
9. Thereafter query report was sought from the concerned Doctor
as is evident from Ex.P-23 and in the query report at point No. (1), it is
mentioned that injury on head of occipital region and scratch 0.5x0.25
cm. on cheek and chest were simple in nature. Thereafter, it is
mentioned at point No.(2) that the head injury on occipital region could
have cause death, therefore, patient was admitted in MSW. At point No.
(3), it is mentioned that injuries could have been cured within 14 days.
10. What is interesting is that after having noted only one injury
on the head i.e. on the occipital region and no other injury was recorded
on the head by concerned Dr. Shukla in his MLC (Ex.P-20) and other
three injuries are in the nature of a abrasion on cheek, a complaint of
tenderness on right arm and abrasion on chest. Once Doctor in his query
report recorded a finding that all the three injuries were simple in nature
at point No.(1) as is evident from Ex.P-23, it is evident that point No.(2)
was mentioned by the Doctor not on the basis of the documentary
evidence, but under the pressure of the police personnel. This renders
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4108
5 CRA-2328-2023
the Doctor to be unfit to discharge his professional duties because a
professional who can change his opinion or he can give opinion without
there being a documentary evidence to give that opinion cannot be said
to be a fit medical professional and for this, we may request the
Principal Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare Department to
conduct departmental enquiry in the conduct of Dr. Sudhir Kumar
Shukla after sending all the necessary papers to the said authority.
11. In any case, even if we take Ex.P-28 NCCT Scan report, then
there is no finding of fracture, there is no finding of any grievous injury
and it is only mentioned that "negative study for acute traumatic brain
injury. Hyperdensity in superior sagittal sinus and bilateral transverse
and sigmoid sinus -? slow flow/thrombosis. Advice : please correlate
clinically." Thus, it is not evident that when NCCT Scan report of brain
was available for Rajkishor Baghel, then where was the occasion for
Doctor to give an opinion without referring to said NCCT Scan report
because it is evident from the reference dated 02.09.2019 made by the
S.H.O., Police Station Mohkhed, District Chhindwara that NCCT report
was not forwarded to the concerned Doctor for query reporting. Thus, it
is evident that prosecution was engaged in suppressing material
document while obtaining query report and query report appears to have
been given under threat of police personnel rather than being based on
the MLC report (Ex.P-20).
12. Coupled with the above, there is no explanation for not
following the opinion of the Doctor, who had carried out MLC and had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4108
6 CRA-2328-2023
advised X-ray for two body parts.
13. At this stage, Shri Manas Mani Verma submits that X-ray
report is available on record, but it is not exhibited.
14. Dr. Shikhar Surana had carried out X-ray of Rajkishor on
07.08.2019 and has clearly mentioned that there is no bony injury.
Similarly, in case of Raman Singh, X-ray report is available on record
and it is mentioned that there is no bonny injury. Thus, it is evident that
when X-rays were carried out at District Hospital, Chhindwara by Dr.
Shikhar Surana, then prosecution withheld the necessary information
and document not only from the concerned Doctor from whom query
report was called, but also failed to exhibited to bring true and correct
picture before the Court.
15. Another gray area in the conduct of prosecution is that police
personal or complainant or the injured have failed to account for
presence of bamboo stick, rod and spade in the Police Chowki,
wherefrom said materials were lying in the Police Chowki and how
police personnel have accounted for its presence in the Police Chowki.
16. It will not be out of place to mention that accused persons
were in the Hawalat. It is not the case of police personnel that they were
equipped with Spade (Fawda), stick (lathi), etc. in the Hawalat. As per
the complainant, they had picked up these materials which were lying at
the Police Chowki, thus onus is on the police personnel to have shown
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4108
7 CRA-2328-2023
that from where that material was collected and was available at the
Police Chowki.
17. There is no seizure of handcuffs, whereas according to the
complainant Raman Singh, Golu had taken out the keys of the handcuffs
from the possession of Rajkishor and had opened all the handcuffs and
accused persons had ran away. Thus, once handcuffs were opened, then
handcuffs should have been seized from the place of the incidence and
also the keys of the handcuffs should have been seized, but no seizure
has been shown in regard to these keys; vital piece of evidence which
prima facie give an impression that initially police personnel were hand
in glove with the accused party and they were the persons responsible
for escape of the under trials and when they realized that their act of
helping the under trials to escape may be counter protective to their
service, then it appears that they created a story of being beaten by the
accused persons.
18. We are not dealing with the appeal of the accused persons. In
any case, when X-ray reports are part of the lower court record and they
say that there were no bony injury, then in the light of Division Bench
judgment of this High Court in Lallu Singh S/o Jagdish Singh Samgar
Vs. State of M.P, 1996 MPLJ 452 , where the Hon'ble Division Bench
has noted as under:-
" 6 . We deprecate method of prosecution of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4108
8 CRA-2328-2023
withholding the evidence collected during
investigation. The prosecutor is a ''State'' and,
therefore, the prosecution should be fair enough to
produce all the evidence collected during
investigation and it should be left to the Court to
come to its own conclusion on the facts proved
before him or the Court concerned.
But despite the absence of formal proof of
document of dying declaration, the same can be
made use of by the accused in his defence, accused
can take the advantage of the document even
without proof of the same. Similarly, the medical
certificate showing the injuries on the body of the
accused can also be made use of by the accused
despite absence of the formal proof."
19. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench
in Lallu Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that prosecution withheld
the X-ray report which clearly reveals that there was no bony injury
either to the Rajkishor or to Raman Singh.
20. As far as Section 307 of IPC is concerned, Section 307
IPC deals with whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4108
9 CRA-2328-2023
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the
offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
21. In the query report, though Doctor has mentioned that spade,
bamboo stick and rod could have caused injuries to injured Rajkishor,
but it is not mentioned that which of the injuries will be corroborated
with which of the weapons and thereafter it is mentioned that opinion of
the Surgical Expert may be called for on point No.2, 3 and 4, but we do
not find any opinion of the Surgical Specialist available on Ex.-P/22. On
the contrary, Dr. Shukla stated at point No.1 of Ex.P-23 that the injuries
were simple in nature and when examined, ingredients of Section 307
are that the death of a human being was attempted; that such death
attempted to be caused by, or in the consequence of the act of the
accused; and that such act was done with the intention of causing death;
or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury: as
the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or beat was sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. When these aspects are
taken into consideration, then there was no bony injury on the head, then
it cannot be said that the injury which which was being termed to be
simple by the Doctor in Ex.P-23 at point No.1 and grievous at other
point impinging on the integrity of the concerned Doctor, was not
sufficient in the other recourse of nature to cause death, it cannot be said
that case any was made out by the prosecution for recording conviction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4108
10 CRA-2328-2023
under Section 307 of IPC.
22. As mentioned above, the whole case prima facie appears to be
concocted, and therefore, not only we dismiss the appeal filed by the
State, but also direct the Principal Secretary, Public Health and Family
Welfare Department to cause inquiry in the conduct of Dr. Sudhir
Kumar Shukla if he still continues to be in service for which Shri Mana
Mani Verma shall forward MLC report (EX-P-20), his query reporting
Ex.P-22 and Ex.P-23, NCCT Scan report Ex.P-28 and unexhibited X-ray
report issued by Dr. Shikhar Surana in which it is mentioned that there
was no bony injury and also put statement of PW-9 because such
Doctors who can come under pressure of police or any external
authority and mould their opinion are not good for the system and
should not be allowed to continue in the system in our opinion,
therefore, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
23. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
24. With the copy of the judgment, record of the trial Court be
returned back.
25. A copy of this judgment be supplied to Shri Manas Mani
Verma - Government Advocate.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4108
11 CRA-2328-2023
sp/-
