Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5978
1 CRA-385-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 385 of 2015
DILIP SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Sharmila Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sonal Gupta - Additional Advocate General.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is preferred
challenging the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to
life imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine with default stipulations of 2 months
additional R.I passed in Sessions Case No.148/3/2013 by Sessions Judge,
Alirajpur vide judgment dated 19.01.20215 for committing the murder of
Idal Singh at 8:00 pm of 28.06.2013 at village Thodsindhi, Faliya, P.S
Sondwa, District Alirajpur.
2. Facts in brief are that Idal Singh (deceased) his wife Reshma (PW-
1) and son Sunil (PW-2) were together at their home at 8:00pm on
28.06.2013 appellant Dilip Singh armed with Faliya reached their house and
asked why they cut the branch of Khakhra tree, Idal Singh explained thatSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 08-03-2025
10:56:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:59782 CRA-385-2015
drainage of water from his house was being obstructed due to the branches of
Khakhra tree so, he cut down the branches.
3. Appellant Dilip Singh attacked the Idal Singh by aiming the head of
Idal Singh and inflicted injury on the head of Idal Sing by Faliya. Idal Singh
got unconscious despite interference of PW-2 appellant/accused did not
stopped after hearing the cry for help. Neighbour Sadhu (PW-5) and
Kant(PW-6) came to the spot and ambulance was called. Reshma (PW-1)
lodged an FIR in Police Station Sondwa, Crime No.71/2013 under Section
301 of the IPC was registered against Dilip Singh at Police Station, Sondwa.
Idal Singh was taken to hospital. Idal Singh died in district hospital,
Alirajpur.
4. Appellant/accused was taken into custody on 24.06.2013 at 5:00 pm
from village Siddhi. Memorandum of incident received from the Dilip Sing
was prepared and a sharp edged Faliya head of Iron comprising 22inch
length and 1.3 inch width of 13.05 inch with wooden handle with a round
cap of iron between the wooden handle and iron comprising 2.3 inch with
blood stain was recovered on 24.06.2013.
5. Statements were recorded and report under Section 173(2) of the
Cr.P.C was submitted to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Alirajpur where a criminal case No.958/2013 was registered and case was
committed to the Court of Sessions Alirajpur vide order dated 04.09.2013.
Charges under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms
Act, 1959 were framed. Appellant abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
6. To bring home the guilt prosecution examined as many as 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 08-03-2025
10:56:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5978
3 CRA-385-2015
witnesses including Reshma wife of deceased as PW-1, Sunil son of
deceased as PW-2, Surpal son of deceased as PW-3, Vesta as PW-4, Sadhu
as PW-5, Kantubai as PW-6, Radhu as PW-7, Jayram as PW-8, Antar Singh
as PW-9, Medical Officer Dr. Santosh Solanki as PW-10, Dr. Sanjay Muvele
as PW-11, A.S Rathore, Assitant Sub-Inspector as PW-12, Dharamraj
Suryanwanshi Crime Branch Inspector, Indore as PW-13, and head constable
Naresh Kumar as PW-14.
7. In cross-examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C appellant
admitted that deceased Idal Singh was his real brother and both the brothers
were living separately. Rest of the facts and circumstances were either
denied or expressed ignorance and pleaded that he is innocent and he has
been falsely implicated. No evidence has been adduced in his defence.
8. Appreciating the evidence trial Court found proved that
appellant/accused caused the death of his brother Idal Singh by inflicting the
injury on the head of Idal Singh by forcefully assaulting through sharp edged
weapon Faliya and the inflicted injury was sufficient to cause the death in the
ordinary course of nature and his case false within the purview of Section
300 of the IPC and convicted appellant as per para 01 of the judgment but
acquitted the appellant from Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act, 1959 as
the notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959 was not brought on
record.
9. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that learned trial Court
committed error in basing the judgment on deriving unwarranted
interference. Judgment of the trial Court is neither legal nor correct. Trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 08-03-2025
10:56:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5978
4 CRA-385-2015
Court was wrong in believing prosecution witness and discarding the defence
version.
Heard.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the appeal
submitting that conviction and sentence is based on proper appreciation of
evidence no case for interference is made out. Appeal is devoid of merits and
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Perused the record.
11. Reshma (PW-1), Sunil (PW-2) and Surpal (PW-3) are the eye
witness of the incident and all three witness have stated that appellant Dilip
Singh inflicted injury on the head of Idal Singh by Faliya and Idal got
unconscious and he was taken to hospital and he died. The incident occurred
at 8:00 pm on 28.06.2013 at the house of Idal. Appellant was familiar to
witnesses as appellant is the real younger brother of deceased. First
Information Report was lodged at 2:50 am of 21.06.2013 in which Dilip is
mentioned as assailant. The FIR Ex. P/1 was lodged by Reshma (PW-1) and
Dr. Sanjay Bhaghel, medical officer district hospital Alirajpur found a
incized wound size 10 cm x 4 cm x bone deep with sharp edges and blood
ozing from the wound was found on the parietal ocipital region of the head.
Idal died at 07:05am on 21.06.2013. Medical Officer Dr. Santosh Solanki
conducted autopsy on the body of Idal on 21.06.2013 at 10:00 am and found
a incized wound of 0.8 cm x 2 cm bone deep size parieto occipital region and
tissues of the brain came outside and there was bleeding. Dr. Santosh
Solanki (PW-10) opined that he either died due to coma caused by the injury
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 08-03-2025
10:56:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5978
5 CRA-385-2015
in the head.
12. As per report Ex.P/19 of Forensic Science Laboratory, Indore
human blood was found on the Faliya recovered on 24.06.2013 from the
information Ex.P/8. No fact has been deduced in cross-examination which
suggests that appellant have been falsely implicated or there was no
possibility in identifying the appellant as assailant. Accordingly, findings of
trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence that appellant caused
the death of his elder brother Idal Singh by inflicting fatal injuries on the
vital part of the body i.e parieto- occipital region.
13. Now, question arises whether the act of the appellant falls within
the purview of Section 302 of the IPC or Section 304 Part-I of the IPC or
304 Part-II of the IPC. Para 5 of cross-examination of Reshma (PW-1)
discloses that there was no enmity between the deceased Idal Singh and
appellant/accused. On the date of incident also no dispute arose between the
appellant and deceased. There was a distance of 60-70 mts between the
house of Idal Singh and appellant. It is undisputed fact that appellant &
deceased are real brothers.
14. In Goverdhan & Anr. vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2025 INSC 47 it is
observed in para 90 and 91 which are as under:-
“90. It is also noticeable that the circumstances under which the assault
took place and the reason for causing the injuries by the appellants and the
motive behind their assault has not come out clearly. Even the sole eye witness,
Lata Bai (PW-10), the mother of the deceased testified that her son was having
visiting terms with the accused persons as they were residing in the sameSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 08-03-2025
10:56:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:59786 CRA-385-2015
locality and she cannot tell why the quarrel occurred suddenly. It has not been
established clearly that it was premeditated and the assault was preplanned
with the intention to kill the deceased. Any prior enmity between the appellants
and the deceased has not been established. Thus, the motive for committing the
crime has not been clearly established and proved.
91. However, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellants had caused the death of the deceased fully knowing that the bodily
injuries caused by the appellants were likely to cause death as the appellants
were armed with deadly weapons, we are inclined to convert the conviction of
the appellants from Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC. Accordingly,
we convict the appellants under Part I of Section 304 IPC. ”
15. In this case also there is no premeditation or plan to commit the
death of his elder brother. The incident occurred in a heat of passion because
the deceased had cut the branches of Khakhra Tree. There are no repeated
assault. Hence, the ratio of Goverdhan (supra) applies and the act of the
appellant falls within the purview of offence under Part-I of Section 304 of
the IPC. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, we are inclined to convert
the conviction of appellant from Section 302 of the IPC to Part-I of Section
304 of the IPC. Therefore, we convict the appellant under Part-I of Section
304 of the IPC.
16. The offence under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC is punishable with
imprisonment of life or imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to 10 years and fine. In this case the appellant is in custody since
24.06.2013, he has suffered a total jail incarceration for a period of 11 years
10 months 13 days. Accordingly, his sentence under Section 304 Part-I of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 08-03-2025
10:56:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5978
7 CRA-385-2015
IPC is reduced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) failing which the appellant will undergo
additional six months rigorous imprisonment. The amount of fine shall be
paid to Reshma (wife of the deceased Idal Singh) resident of village
Thodsindhi, Faliya, P.S Sondwa, District Alirajpur.
17. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its
record for information and to prepare the super session warrant of the
appellant and to get the sentence executed by them. A copy of the judgment
be also supplied to Reshma (PW-1) wife of the deceased.
18. With the aforesaid, this criminal appeal stands disposed off.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
akanksha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 08-03-2025
10:56:25