Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imrat vs The State Of M.P. on 7 July, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
1 CRA-1250-1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 7 th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1250 of 1996
IMRAT
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri P.N.Das - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1313 of 1996
BUDDHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Nikhare - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
Both these criminal appeals (Cr.Nos.1250/1996 & 1313/1996) have
arisen out of judgment of conviction dated 30.7.1996 passed by the learned
10th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.207/94 [State
of M.P. Vs. Buddhu and three others], therefore, they were heard
analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
2 CRA-1250-1996
2. As per prosecution story, on 08.4.1993 at about 08.45 am the
appellants/accused persons abused Nanku by hurling filthy words, and
thereby, causing irritation and also committed murder of deceased-Nanku in
public place near Panchayat Bhawan in village Karhaiya, P.S. Belkheda,
District Jabalpur. In furtherance of common intention alongwith co-accused
persons and in the same incident tried to commit murder of PW.1-Kandhilal
and PW.2-Tattu. Therefore, accused persons were charged for offences under
sections 294, 302, 307 r/w 34 (2 counts) of Indian Penal Code.
3. Admitted facts before the trial Court were that deceased-Nanku,
PW.1-Kandhilal and PW.2-Tattu are real brothers. Kanta Bai (PW.3) is wife
of Tattu (PW.2).
4. Prosecution story is that on 08.4.1993 at about 08.45 am
deceased-Nanku took his buffaloes to have drinking water in front of
government handpump situated near Panchayat Bahwan and he tried to dig a
pit for the same purpose. Accused-Buddhu objected and said that this water
is used by them for the purpose of preparation of bricks. Meanwhile, accused
No.2 (Birju), accused No.3 (Munna) and accused No.4 (Imrat) also arrived at
the spot. Appellant/accused (Buddhu) was having an axe and rest of the
accused persons were having ‘lathi’ and ‘parena’. All the accused persons
thrashed Nanku. Accused-Buddhu gave axe blow on the head of Nanku and
rest of the three accused persons gave ‘lathi’ blows. When PW.1-Kandhilal
tried to intervene the accused persons also assaulted and caused injuries to
him with lathi. The accused persons also assaulted and caused injuries to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
3 CRA-1250-1996
PW.2-Tattu who came to intervene. The incident was seen by PW-3/Kanta
Bai, wife of Tattu. After accused went away, seriously injured Nanku was
taken by PW.1-Kandhilal and PW.2-Tattu to the Police Station, Belkheda.
There, Nanku lodged an F.I.R. (Exhibit-P/25). The Police Station, Belkheda
registered the case and sent the injured persons Tattu and Kandhilal for
medical examination to Belkheda Hospital where Assistant Surgeon
H,M.Wadhwani (PW.4) examined Nanku, PW.1-Kandhilal & PW.2-Tattu.
Their medical examination reports are Exhibits-P/8, 11 & 7 respectively.
During treatment at Belkheda Hospital injured-Nanku expired at 12.45 pm,
therefore, vide intimation (Exhibit-P/10) Dr.M.H.Wadhwani informed the
Police Station, Belkheda who registered Merg vide Exhibit-P/24 and
prepared ‘panchayatnama’ Exhibit-P/6. Dr.R.K.Mishra (PW.9) conducted
postmortem of the body of deceased-Nanku and submitted post-mortem
report (Exhibit-P/23), in which it is mentioned that cause of death of
deceased-Nanku is due to injuries over vital parts head and spleen.
5. During investigation Police inspected the place of incident and
collected blood soaked soil and normal soil and ‘panchnama’ (Exhibit-P/13)
was prepared. Acccused-Buddhu was taken into custody and questioned and
on his information memorandum (Exhibit-P/15) an axe was seized vide
seizure memo (Exhibit-P/3). Similarly, on the information of accused-Birju
memorandum (Exhibit-P/16) ‘lathi’ was seized vide seizure memo (Exhibit-
P/4). On the memorandum of accused-Munna, Exhibit-P/14 ‘lathi’ was
seized vide seizure memo Exhibit-P/1. On the memorandum of Accused-
Imrat Exhibit-P/17, ‘lathi’ was seized from him vide seizure memo Exhibit-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
4 CRA-1250-1996
P/2. The seized soil from spot, arms and clothes of deceased were sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Report received from
there is Exhibit-P/27, according to which soil (article-A), clothes of
deceased Kurta (article C-1) and Bandi (article C-2) have human blood.
Similarly, ‘ lathi’ (article-D) seized from accused-Birju, article-F ‘lathi’
seized from accused-Imrat and article-G ‘lathi’ seized from accused-
Munna Singh were also having blood stains. After completion of
investigation a charge-sheet was filed.
6. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and accused
persons were charged. They denied charges, therefore, they were subjected to
trial. After prosecution evidence the accused persons were examined under
section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they stated that they are innocent.
7. The prosecution examined PW.1-Kandhilal, PW.2-Tattu, PW.3-
Kanta Bai, PW.4-Dr.H.M.Wadhwani, PW.5-Chandrakant (Shree Patwari),
PW.6-Shyamlal, PW.7-Manbodha Singh, PW.8- Head Constable Vishwanath
Sondhiya, PW.9-Dr.R.K.Mishra, PW.10-Milan Singh Rajput and PW.11-
Sub Inspector S.B.S.Chouhan as Investigating Officer.
8. The accused persons have examined DW.1-Mullu @ Kishori.
9. The trial Court vide impugned judgment has convicted Accused
No.1-Buddhu for offence under section 302 of IPC for causing death of
Nanku, 323 r/w 34 of IPC (two counts) for causing hurt to PW.1-Kandhilal
and PW.2-Tattu. The trial Court convicted rest of three accused persons for
offence under section 302/34 and with section 323/34 of IPC (two counts) as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
5 CRA-1250-1996
stated above. All the accused persons were acquitted from charge under
section 307 and 294 of IPC. The trial Court sentenced all the accused persons
with Life Imprisonment for causing death of Nanku and for offence under
section 323 r/w 34 of IPC they were sentenced with R.I. 01 year (two
counts).
10. Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence Criminal Appeal No.1250/1996 has been preferred by
appellant/accused-Imrat on the ground that all eye witnesses are related
witnesses and their evidence do not corroborate with the medical evidence.
There are omissions and contradictions. The offence of commission of
murder was not preplanned and all of a sudden fight started. The use of
weapon parena is not established. It has not been explained as to how rupture
of spleen was caused. Even if the commission of offence by accused is
accepted, then at best it would be a case of section 325 of the Indian Penal
Code. Hence, prayer has been made to set aside the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence.
11. In Criminal Appeal No.1313/1996 [Buddhu and two others Vs.
State of M.P.] the grounds urged to challenge the impugned judgment are
same. In addition it is also mentioned that PW.4-Dr.H.M.Wadhwani directed
injured-Nanku to be sent to the Medical College, Jabalpur at about 10.30 am
but he was not sent till 12.30 pm and, therefore, there was delay as he did not
receive medical help in time and had injured been sent in time to Medical
College, Jablapur injured could have been saved. Therefore, prayer has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
6 CRA-1250-1996
made for setting aside impugned judgment and granting their acquittal.
12. On the other hand, Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Government
Advocate, supports the impugned judgment of the trial Court and claimed
dismissal of instant appeals.
13. Since appellants were on bail, therefore, on the request of
learned counsel for the parties custody report of the appellants/accused
persons was called from concerned jail. The prosecution has filed custody
report vide letter No.1330/Warrant-1/2025 dated 02.7.2025, according to
which, convict-Munna Singh has undergone jail sentence of 3 years 10
months 02 days and currently he is on bail. Similarly, convict-Buddhu has
suffered jail sentence of 10 years 06 months and 07 days. Likewise, convict-
Birju has undergone custody for 03 years 09 months & 21 days. Further, vide
letter No.1331/Warrant-1/2025 dated 02.7.2025 it has been informed that
convict-Imrat served jail sentence of 04 years & 24 days. It is also informed
that none of the accused persons are presently in jail and they all are on bail.
14. We have perused the record and considered the evidence and
arguments of learned counsel for the parties. We find that there is no
substantial contradiction and omission in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. Minor omissions and contradictions will not dislodge the
prosecution case. In Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B., AIR 2012 SC 3539
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that all omissions do not come in the
category of omission. Only those omissions which affect the merit of the
prosecution case and are material in substance can be said to be omission. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
7 CRA-1250-1996
this regard it would be worth referring to paragraphs 47 & 49 of above
judgment which read as under:-
“47. From the above discussion, it precipitates that the discrepancies or
the omissions have to be material ones and then alone, they may
amount to contradiction of some serious consequence. Every omission
cannot take the place of a contradiction in law and therefore, be the
foundation for doubting the case of the prosecution. Minor
contradictions, inconsistencies or embellishments of trivial nature
which do not affect the core of the prosecution case should not be
taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence in its entirety.
It is only when such omissions amount to a contradiction creating a
serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of the witness
and other witnesses also make material improvements or
contradictions before the court in order to render the evidence
unacceptable, that the courts may not be in a position to safely rely
upon such evidence. Serious contradictions and omissions which
materially affect the case of the prosecution have to be understood in
clear contra-distinction to mere marginal variations in the statement of
the witnesses. The prior may have effect in law upon the evidentiary
value of the prosecution case; however, the latter would not adversely
affect the case of the prosecution. Another settled rule of appreciation
of evidence as already indicated is that the court should not draw any
conclusion by picking up an isolated portion from the testimony of a
witness without adverting to the statement as a whole. Sometimes it
may be feasible that admission of a fact or circumstance by the
witness is only to clarify his statement or what has been placed on
record. Where it is a genuine attempt on the part of a witness to bring
correct facts by clarification on record, such statement must be seen in
a different light to a situation where the contradiction is of such a
nature that it impairs his evidence in its entirety.
48. xxxxx xxxxxx
49. The basic element which is unambiguously clear from the
explanation to Section 162 CrPC is use of the expression ‘may’. To
put it aptly, it is not every omission or discrepancy that may amount to
material contradiction so as to give the accused any advantage. If the
legislative intent was to the contra, then the legislature would have
used the expression ‘shall’ in place of the word ‘may’. The word
‘may’ introduces an element of discretion which has to be exercised
by the court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
8 CRA-1250-1996
Furthermore, whether such omission, variation or discrepancy is a
material contradiction or not is again a question of fact which is to be
determined with reference to the facts of a given case. The concept of
contradiction in evidence under criminal jurisprudence, thus, cannot be
stated in any absolute terms and has to be construed liberally so as to
leave desirable discretion with the court to determine whether it is a
contradiction or material contradiction which renders the entire
evidence of the witness untrustworthy and affects the case of the
prosecution materially.”
15. In A.Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka , (2011) 6 SCC 279 it has
been held that small omissions and contradictions may be due to different
capacity to observe, to remember, due to passing away of time and out of
shock and fear minor contradictions should not be given too much
importance. In the above case Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 22 held
thus:-
“22 In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to
occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of
observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or
due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of
occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction,
creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and
other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing
in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.
However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments
or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core
of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which
the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.”
Therefore, plea of omissions and contradictions in this case, as it is
seen, are not material omissions and contradictions. Thus, plea for acquittal
on ground of omission and contradiction is rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
9 CRA-1250-1996
16. Another ground urged is that if the injured-Nanku would have
been taken in time to the hospital then his life could have been saved. Again,
it is not a plea which can be allowed to acquit accused/appellants as there is
no deliberate delay on the part of doctor (PW.4) or the complainant. Had the
delay been deliberate so that deceased may die and charges of murder can be
heaped against accused persons it would have been a arguable point but not
in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, this objection is
rejected.
17. One objection is that all the witnesses are related witnesses but
law on this point is very clear. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that
evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded, only it has to be evaluated
minutely as the relatives would be the last person who would want that real
culprit to be freed and innocent person to be implicated in serious crime. In
State of U.P. Vs. Shobhanath , (2009) 6 SCC 600 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that it is normal human conduct that related witness would not
implicate other person in a murder case. They will only want that real culprit
should be punished. In this regard paragraph 30 of above decision would be
worth referring, which is reproduced below:-
“30. So far as the dying declaration of the deceased is concerned, the
same apparently was not recorded either by the police officer or by the
doctor. There is some doubt about making of such dying declaration
by the deceased and therefore, the dying declaration said to have been
made by the victim was not correctly relied on by the High Court. But
even if the said dying declaration is taken out of purview of the
evidence on record, even then the statements of the eyewitnesses can
under no circumstances be doubted and held as untrustworthy. We find
no reason as to why the close relatives of the deceased would try toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2965710 CRA-1250-1996
rope in someone else as the murderers of their near relation and give
up the actual accused. It is against the human conduct. In a case of
murder the near relations would make all endeavour to see that the
actual culprits are punished.”
18. In Birender Poddar v. State of Bihar , AIR 2011 SC 2336 it has
been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that evidence of interested witness is
not a ground to discredit the prosecution witness. Only it has to be valued
carefully, Paragraphs 14 & 16 of the above decision are thus:-
“14. Now coming to the question of reliance by the prosecution
on witnesses who are related to the deceased, we find that the law
is well settled that merely because the witnesses are related, is not a
ground to discard their evidence. On the other hand, the Court has
held that in many cases, the relations are only available for giving
evidence, having regard to the trend in our present society, where
other than relations, witnesses are not available. It is of course true
that the evidence of the interested witnesses have to be carefully
scrutinised. We find that the High Court has scrutinised the
evidence of the relations with due care and caution.
15. xxxxxxx xxxxxx
16. 15. Two other decisions which have been cited by the learned
counsel for the appellant were rendered in Namdeo v. State of
Maharashtra [(2007) 14 SCC 150 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 773]
and State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan [(2009) 14
SCC 267 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1356] which dealt with the question
of appreciation of evidence of interested witnesses. Both those
decisions follow the well-settled principle that just because
evidence is given by the interested persons that is no ground for
discarding the same. We have already held that in the instant case,
the evidence given by PWs 5, 6, 7 and 8 is quite cogent and clearly
established the prosecution case.”
19. In fact, there are injured witnesses. In Bhajan Singh @
Harbhajan Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 2552 it has been
held that injured witness should be believed, unless there is some valid
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
11 CRA-1250-1996
reason to discard the evidence on the ground of material omissions or
contradictions. Hon’ble Supreme in paragraph 19 of above decision has held
as under:-
“19. Depositions of Trilok Singh (PW.9) and Ajaib Singh
(PW.10) fully corroborate the medical reports. The High Court
correctly appreciated this issue as under:
“So, according to their testimonies two injuries were caused to
Gian Singh (deceased), four injuries were caused to Nishan Singh
(deceased) and three injuries were caused to Ajaib Singh (PW.10).
In medical evidence also, two injuries were found on the body of
Gian Singh (deceased) and four injuries were found on P.W.10
Ajaib Singh as per copy of medico legal report Exhibit P.AA.
There is some conflict about the seat of the injuries as stated by
P.W.9 Trilok Singh and P.W. 10 Ajaib Singh.”
The testimonies of Trilok Singh (PW.9) and Ajaib Singh (PW.10)
are fully reliable. Ajaib Singh (PW.10) is an injured witness in the
same occurrence and his testimony cannot be ignored”.
20. In this case also there are injured witnesses PW.1-Kandhilal &
PW.-Tattu and accused persons have been convicted and punished by the
trial Court for causing injury to injured persons (Kandhilal & Tattu) whose
medical reports are Exhibits-P/11 & P/7 respectively are on record.
21. In the case under appeal one fact can be appreciated in the facts
and circumstances of the case in the light of material available that it was not
premeditated homicidal death. The quarrel started all of a sudden on the
ground that deceased-Nanku took his buffaloes to have drinking water near a
public handpump where accused persons objected on the ground that water is
being used by them for preparing bricks.
22. As per statement of Dr.H,M.Wadhwani (PW.4) deceased Nanku
had a cut injury on his head which injury i.e. injury No.1, whereas injury
no.2 is swelling in his head. Injury No.3 is contusion in chest and injury no.4
is lacerated wound on forehead. Injury No.5 was small abrasions on back,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
12 CRA-1250-1996
left and right elbow, right & left knee. This witness in paragraph 16 of his
cross-examination has stated that death could have been caused due to injury
no.1 on account of over flow of excessive blood and Nanku was aged about
60 years. In paragraph 19 this witness has further stated that due to injury
No.2, 3, 4 & 5 death of person could not have been caused. On being asked
by the Court in paragraph 22 if in case due to injury no.3 there is fracture on
9 th & 10 th ribs and there is rupture of spleen can there be death of a person
the Doctor replied in affirmative but in cross-examination by Defence this
witness again stated in paragraph 23 that due to normal fracture in ribs death
cannot be caused.
23. Therefore, looking to the genesis of quarrel and nature of
injuries to deceased-Nanku it is seen that matter is covered under section
300, Exception-4 of IPC, which reads as under:-
“Exception 4.- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of
passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation:- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers
the provocation or commits the first assault.”
24. Therefore, this case would not be covered under section 302 of
IPC but under section 304 Part-II of IPC which provides for punishment for
culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the same is punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to ten years
or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is
likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death, or to cause
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
25. Accordingly, conviction of accused-Buddhu is altered from
Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II of IPC and rest three accused persons
from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304 Part-II of IPC and they are punished
with imprisonment of 07 years R.I. The punishment under section 323 (two
counts) of IPC and on the accused appellants are maintained.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29657
13 CRA-1250-1996
26. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The disposal of the
property shall be as per the direction of the trial Court. All the accused
persons are on bail. The accused persons, namely, Munna Singh, Birju and
Imrat shall surrender before the concerned court to be sent to serving the
remain jail sentence. As per jail reply appellant/accused-Buddhu Singh has
already undergone jail sentence of 10 years with remission, therefore, he
should be discharged of his bail bonds.
27. Let record of the trial Court be sent to the concerned court
alongwith copy of this judgment.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 08-07-2025
11:24:35
[ad_1]
Source link