[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Singh Gond vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7182
1 CRA-5781-2022
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 27th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5781 of 2022
DEVENDRA SINGH GOND
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Teeka Ram Kurmi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.15982/2025, which is the second application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.15982/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.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 being aggrieved of the judgment dated 14/05/2022
passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh (MP) in
S.T. No.82/2019 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the
appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7182
2 CRA-5781-2022
imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default stipulation to
undergo additional R.I. for two months.
2. It is submitted that as per prosecution story, incident took place
all of a sudden. It is pointed out that appellant-Devendra Singh Gond
had visited the field where other boys were playing cricket. He asked
Golu Thakur as to why he had taken his cricket bat without his
permission. Thereafter he took cricket bat from the hands of Golu and
had cut it into pieces. On this happening, there was an altercation
between the appellant and Pradeep. Thereafter matter was settled
between the parties and it was decided that Devendra shall pay the cost
of the bat for which Pradeep and his friends had accompanied appellant-
Devendra Singh Gond to his house. When again, there was exchange of
abuses then Devendra had hit Pradeep with an axe which caused injuries
to Pradeep, as a result of which Pradeep suffered heavy bleeding and
died.
3. It is submitted that Dr. P. Koshta (PW-17) had conducted post-
mortem and, on external examination, found that there was a deep
incised wound on the right hand side of the neck measuring 10.5 x 7 x 3
cm. It is also submitted that since it is a case of single injury, incident
had taken place on account of sudden provocation and there was no
premeditation or intention to cause death, but, appellant definitely had
knowledge that his act may cause death, this is a fit case to alter
conviction from one under Section 302 of IPC to 304 Part-II of IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7182
3 CRA-5781-2022
4. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State,
opposes the prayer and submits that present is a case where deadly
weapon was used on a vital part of the body, therefore, in this case no
indulgence may be shown.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. Post-mortem doctor i.e. Dr. P. Koshta (PW-17) categorically
deposed that cause of death was because of the injury caused with an
axe. Eye witness -Deependra Yadav (PW-1) deposed that when
Deependra and Pradeep had gone to the house of appellant, then he had
abused them. This witness further deposed that in the meanwhile
mother, father and uncle of Pradeep had reached the place of the incident
and they had counselled that there was nothing in demanding money.
This witness in cross-examination admitted that 100 dial and 108 dial,
both, had reached the spot, but, he had not lodged any report. In para-9
of his cross-examination, this witness admitted that there was no
previous enmity between Pradeep and appellant-Devendra Singh Gond.
They were playing cricket together and were living in a cordial
atmosphere. Pradeep had sustained only one injury as corroborated
by Dr. P. Koshta (PW-17).
6. Smt. Shobharani Yadav (PW-2) admitted that Deependra
Yadav (PW-1) is son of her Dever i.e. he is nephew of Smt. Shobharani
Yadav (PW-2). Smt. Shobharani Yadav (PW-2) appears to be not an
eye witness and she appears to have reached the place of the incident
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7182
4 CRA-5781-2022
after the incident had taken place. Sunil Yadav (PW-3) also admitted
that he had received intimation in his fields that Devendra Thakur had
caused injured to Pradeep, then he reached the spot. Sandeep Yadav
(PW-4) is elder brother of deceased-Pradeep. This witness too is not an
eye witness, but, it is evident from his evidence that he had not seen the
incident because he admitted in his cross-examination that he was not
present at home at the time of the incident.
7. Mulayam Yadav (PW-5) is also a hearsay witness who deposed
that Uma had given him intimation that Devendra had caused injury to
Pradeep with an axe. Veer Singh (PW-6) has turned hostile. He has not
supported the prosecution's case so also Manohar Singh (PW-7).
8. When these facts and the evidence of Dr. P. Koshta (PW-17) are
taken into consideration, then it is evident that its a case of single injury.
Incident took place in the heat of the moment, there was no
premeditation, therefore, case will fall under Exception-4 to Section 300
of IPC, and when these 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 14/05/2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Damoh (MP) in S.T. No.82/2019 is modified to the
extent that instead of Section 302 of the IPC, the appellant is convicted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7182
5 CRA-5781-2022
under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and he is directed to undergo R.I. for
ten years along with fine of Rs.25,000/- with a default stipulation to
undergo additional R.I. for one year. It is also directed that fine amount
be paid to the family of deceased-Pradeep Yadav.
9. Accordingly, this 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.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
ts
