Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bherulal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5927
1 CRA-1066-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1066 of 2014
BHERULAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms Nisha Jaiswal - advocate for the appellant.
Shri Harish Singh Rathore - Government Advocate for the
respondents State.
Reserved on :- 20.02.2025
Posted on :- 06.03.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
This Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is preferred challenging the conviction under
Section 302 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.
1000/- with default stipulations of one month additional rigorous
imprisonment in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2012 by Sessions Judge,
Session Division, Neemuch by judgment dated 13.06.2014.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5927
2 CRA-1066-2014
2. Facts in brief are that deceased Vimlabai was married to
Kailash Teli by ‘Natra Pratha’ ten years ago from the date of incident
i.e. 21.12.2008. Appellant is the brother of Kailash Teli and usually
remain absent from the house. Whenever he return home then he was in
habit to make a quarrel with the family members. In the morning hours
of the fateful day of 21.12.2008 Vimlabai (deceased) along with another
Vimlabai, D/o Lakabalai (PW-7) moved to a passage of ‘Sukhvadiya’
where a well was situated to relax themselves by washing the hand and
mouth by water. The appellant accused reached there armed with an axe
and make a forceful assault on the head of Vimla bai. Vimlabai fell
down and succumbed to injuries and the appellant accused ran away
from the spot. Vimlabai (PW-7) narrated the incident to Sushila (PW-1)
and ‘Dehalti Nalsi’ (Exhibit-P-1) was written by the In-charge of the
Police Station, Singroli Avinesh Shrivastav at 09:15 AM of 21.12.2008.
Thereafter, a Crime No. 179/2008 was registered against the appellant
accused. Autopsy was conducted. Spot map was prepared. Seizure was
made, but the appellant could not be traced and a charge sheet was
prepared showing the appellant Bherulal as absconded. Thereafter, the
appellant was arrested on 23.02.2012 vide Exhibit-P-23 and axe was
recovered from the information Exhibit-P-25. Rest of the investigation
was completed and additional charge sheet was submitted to the Court
of JMFC, Jawad under Section 173 (8) of Cr.PC. Criminal Case No.
591 of 2009 was registered and vide order dated 23.06.2012 case was
submitted to the Sessions Court, Neemuch.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5927
3 CRA-1066-2014
3. Charge under Section 302 of the IPC was framed and the
appellant accused abjured guilt and claimed for trial. To bring home the
guilt prosecution examined Sushila as (PW-1), Younger brother of the
appellant and husband of the deceased namely Kailash as (PW-2),
Ashok as (PW-3), Pooranlal as (PW-4), Ramlal as (PW-5),
Radhakishan as (PW-6), eye witness of the incident Vimlabai as (PW-
7), Patwari Shivrajsingh Tomar as (PW-8), Constable Hemraj as (PW-
9), Jagdish as (PW-10), Medical Officer Dr. B.L. Gayal as (PW-11),
Inspector Avneesh Shrivastav as (PW-12) and Head Constable
Bheemsingh Devra as (PW-13), In-charge of the Police Station Singoli
as Shri P.S. Kanoje as (PW-14).
4. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.PC the appellant
accused either denied or expressed ignorance regarding all the facts and
circumstances appeared in the prosecution evidence appeared against
him. He only took the defense that to forfeit his share of land he has
been falsely implicated. His I.Q is poor. He did not examine any
witnesses in his defense.
5. Appreciating the testimony of Doctor B.L. Gayal (PW-11),
who conducted the autopsy of the deceased Vimla trial Court recorded
the finding that nature of death of Vimlabai is homicidal and
appreciating the evidence of eye witness Vimla (PW-7), Sushila (PW-
1), Kailash (PW-2), Ashok (PW-3), Radhakishan (PW-6) and the police
officials involved in the investigations and the report of State FSL,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5927
4 CRA-1066-2014
Sagar (Exhibit-P-28) and Exhibit-P-27 recorded the finding that
deceased Vimlabai was succumbed to the injuries caused by the
appellant using the axe and further recorded the finding that death of
Vimlabai has been caused intentionally and act of the appellant falls
within the purview of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC
and sentence of life imprisonment as mentioned in Paragraph 37 of the
judgment was inflicted. Challenging the conviction and sentence this
appeal has been preferred.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Counsel for the State has supported the conviction of sentence
and argued that no ground for interference is made out.
8. Perused the record.
9. Testimony of PW-7, Vimlabai, discloses that at the time of
incident deceased Vimla and this witness Vimlabai (PW-7) were
together to answer the natures call. They were at a distance of 20 feet.
The time was of morning 07:00 AM and this witness has stated that the
appellant hit the head of Vimla forcefully using axe. Vimla fall on the
ground and appellant ran away from the spot. This witness has no
reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Nothing has been deduced in
the cross examination to demonstrate that she has any reason to falsely
implicate the appellant. The appellant was well acquainted to the
witness because both belongs to the same village and the time of
incident was of early morning and distance of 20 feet is such that there
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5927
5 CRA-1066-2014
could be any doubt regarding the capacity of the witness Vimlabai (PW-
7) in identifying the assailant as appellant. The ‘Dehati Nalsi ‘(Exhibit-
P-1) has been recorded within a short duration of the incident in which
the name of the assailant is clearly mentioned. Accordingly, trial Court
has rightly found this witness reliable.
10. Dr B.L. Gayal (PW-11) has found the following injuries on
the body of the deceased :-
“5- शव पर ण ितवेदन अनुसार मृतका के
बाहय चोटे िन नुसार है :-
चोट ं .1 कटा हुआ घाव चेहरे म बाई तरफ
खोपड से लेकर गदन तक जसका आकार 6x2x2 इं च
था।
चोट ं .2 कटा हुआ घाव खोपड म दा हनी तरफ
पेराईटल र जन म जसका आधार 4×2.5×2 इं च था
चोट ं .3 कटा हुआ घाव खोपड म बाई तरफ
जसका आकार 3×1.5×1.5 इं च का था।
चोट ं .4 कटा हुआ घाव िसर के पीछे क और
जसका आकार 3x2x2 इं च था।
चोट ं .5 कटा हुआ घाव आ सीपीटल र जन पर
जो चोट ं .4 के पास था जसका आकार 2.56x2x2 इं च
था।
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5927
6 CRA-1066-2014
चोट ं .6 चोट ं .5 के नीचे क और कटा हुआ
घाव जसका आकार 2x2x1.5 इं च था।
आंत रक पर ण
6- शव पर ण ितवेदन अनुसार आंत रक
पर ण म यह पाया था क मृतका को जहा जहा बाहर
चोट है वह चोटे अंदर क और भी थी। जो म त क तक
थी। मृतका के बा क सभी अंग व थ पाये थे।
अिभमत:-
7- शव पर ण ितवेदन अनुसार मृठका के
मृ यु का कारण वाईटल आगन म आई इं जुर के कारण
हुई थी। जो क होमी साईडल है । जसक अविध मृ यु के
12 घ टे के अंदर क थी। ”
11. In Pulicherla Nagaraju v State of A P, (2006) 11 SCC
444 the Apex Court while deciding whether a case falls under
Section 302 or 304 Part I of 304 Part II, held thus :
“29. Therefore, the court should proceed
to decide the pivotal question of intention,
with care and caution, as that will decidewhether the case falls under Section 302 or
304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or
insignificant matters — plucking of a fruit,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:59277 CRA-1066-2014
straying of cattle, quarrel of children,
utterance of a rude word or even an
objectionable glance, may lead to altercations
and group clashes culminating in deaths.
Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or
suspicion may be totally absent in such cases.
There may be no intention.
There may be no premeditation. In fact,
there may not even be criminality. At the other
end of the spectrum, there may be cases of
murder where the accused attempts to avoid
the penalty for murder by attempting to put
forth a case that there was no intention to
cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that
the cases of murder punishable under Section
302, are not converted into offences
punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or
cases of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, are treated as murder punishable
under Section 302. The intention to cause
death can be gathered generally from aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:59278 CRA-1066-2014
combination of a few or several of the
following, among other, circumstances: (i)
nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the
weapon was carried by the accused or was
picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow
is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the
amount of force employed in causing injury;
(v) whether the act was in the course of
sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all
fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by
chance or whether there was any
premeditation; (vii) whether there was any
prior enmity or whether the deceased was a
stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave
and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause
for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in
the heat of passion; (x) whether the person
inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage
or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner;
(xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or
several blows. The above list of circumstances
is, of course, not exhaustive and there may beSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:59279 CRA-1066-2014
several other special circumstances with
reference to individual cases which may throw
light on the question of intention. Be that as it
may.”
12. In Singapagu Anjaiah v State of A P , (2010) 9 SCC
799, Apex Court while deciding the question of whether a blow
on the skull of the deceased with a crowbar would attract Section
302, held thus :
“16. In our opinion, as nobody can enter
into the mind of the accused, his intention has
to be gathered from the weapon used, the part
of the body chosen for the assault and the
nature of the injuries caused. Here, the
appellant had chosen a crowbar as the weapon
of offence. He has further chosen a vital part
of the body i.e. the head for causing the injury
which had caused multiple fractures of skull.
This clearly shows the force with which the
appellant had used the weapon. The
cumulative effect of all these factors
irresistibly leads to one and the only
conclusion that the appellant intended to cause
death of the deceased.”
13. In Som Raj v State of H P (2013) 14 SCC 246, Apex
Court while deciding the question of whether a single blow on
the skull with a darat would attract conviction under Section 302,
held thus :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5927
10 CRA-1066-2014
“16.2. From the statements of Dr SumanSaxena (PW 4) and Dr B.M. Gupta (PW 5),
the nature of injuries caused to the deceased
has been brought out. A perusal thereof would
leave no room for doubt that the appellant-
accused had chosen the sharp side of the darat
and not the blunt side. The ferocity with which
the aforesaid blow was struck clearly emerges
from the fact that the blow resulted in cutting
through the skull of the deceased and caused a
hole therein, resulting in exposing the brain
tissue. When a blow with a deadly weapon is
struck with ferocity, it is apparent that the
assailant intends to cause bodily injury of a
nature which he knows is so imminently
dangerous, that it must in all probability cause
death.
16.3. The place where the blow was
struck (at the back of the head of the
deceased) by the appellant-accused, also leads
to the same inference.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5927
11 CRA-1066-2014
16.4. It is not the case of the appellant-
accused that the occurrence arose out of a
sudden quarrel. It is also not his case that the
blow was struck in the heat of the moment. It
is not even his case that he had retaliated as a
consequence of provocation at the hands of
the deceased. He has therefore no excuse for
such an extreme act.
16.5. Another material fact is the
relationship between the parties. The
appellant-accused was an uncle to the
deceased. In such circumstances, there is
hardly any cause to doubt the intent and
knowledge of the appellant-accused.
16.6. Besides the aforesaid factual
position, it would be incorrect to treat the
instant incident as one wherein a single blow
had been inflicted by the accused. As many as
five witnesses of the occurrence have stated in
unison, that the appellant-accused was in the
process of inflicting a second blow on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5927
12 CRA-1066-2014
deceased, when they caught hold of him,
whereupon one of them (Mohinder Singh, PW
6) snatched the darat from the appellant-
accused, and threw it away. In such a
situation, it would be improper to
treat/determine the culpability of the
appellant-accused by assuming that he had
inflicted only one injury on the deceased.
16.7. Keeping in mind the parameters of
the judgments referred to by the learned
counsel for the rival parties (which have been
extracted above), we have no doubt in our
mind that the appellant-accused must be
deemed to have committed the offence of
“culpable homicide amounting to murder”
under Section 302 of the Penal Code, as the
appellant-accused Som Raj had struck the
darat-blow with the intention of causing such
bodily injury, which he knew was so
imminently dangerous, that it would in all
probability cause the death of Sardari Lal.
Having recorded the aforesaid conclusion, weSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:592713 CRA-1066-2014
are satisfied, that the appellant-accused was
justifiably convicted for the offence under
Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, as
also, to pay a fine of Rs 10,000 (and in
default, to undergo further simple
imprisonment for a period of one year).
17. In view of our aforesaid conclusions,
the instant appeal being devoid of merit, is
dismissed.”
14. The injury found on the body of deceased Vimla
demonstrates that assault was made by using axe with force and
ultimately caused the death of Vimla on the spot .
15. In the light of Pulicherla Nagaraju (supra) and
Singapagu Anjaoaj Vs. State of A.P (supra) and keeping in mind
the parameters of the judgments referred above, we have no
doubt in our mind that the appellant-accused must be deemed to
have committed the offence of “culpable homicide amounting to
murder” under Section 302 of the Penal Code, as the appellant-
accused Bheerulal had struck the axe with the intention of
causing such bodily injury, which he knew was so imminently
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5927
14 CRA-1066-2014
dangerous, that it would in all probability cause the death of
Vimlabai. Having recorded the aforesaid conclusion, we are
satisfied, that the appellant-accused was justifiably convicted for
the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, as also, to pay a fine of
Rs 1000/- with default stipulations, to undergo one month
rigorous imprisonment.
16. In view of our aforesaid conclusions, the instant
appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
17. Copy of this order be provided to the appellant
accused through Superintendent Central Jail, Ujjain. Copy of this
order be forwarded to the concerned Court with the record.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
rashmi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-03-2025
12:44:42