Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 383 (MP)

Babulal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2025-07-04

AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH, VIVEK AGARWAL

body2025
ORDER : Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This criminal appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.09.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, District - Chhindwara in ST No.91/2015 whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for homicidal death of Jitendra and sentenced him to undergo RI for life (fine Rs.5,000/-) with a stipulation that in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. 2. The prosecution case in short is that deceased Jitendra was a property dealer. Jitendra, his family members and appellant Babulal were residents of the same locality and were known to each other. It has come on record that the incident took place on 24.01.2015 when complainant - Baburao was in his house along with his wife, daughter and his son - Jitendra, then doorbell had rung and Jitendra came out of his house. Allegation is that the appellant Babulal caused a stab wound in chest of Jitendra. On hearing cries of Jitendra, his father, mother and sister came out of their house then they saw that Babulal was running ahead and Jitendra was following him. Thereafter Jitendra had fallen in front of house of Rajkumar Patil where he was given first aid and taken to the hospital. He died because of excessive blood loss. It has also come on record, Jitendra was given first aid by Dr. Nirnay Pandey (PW-13), medical officer, Chhindwara and he had noted a wound measuring 3x2x2 cm caused by hard and sharp object. Jitendra died because of excessive blood loss. It is submitted that intimation was given by Dr. Nirnay Pandey to City Kotwali vide Ex. P-19 when merg No.15 was registered. It is also not in dispute that PW-14 (Dr. Narendra Hanote) had conducted postmortem and found that there was a wound measuring 2.5x2 cm with blood stains on the front of T-shirt. 3. Shri Parasnath Das submits that since it is a case of single blow as is admitted by postmortem Dr. Narenda Hanote (PW-14), conviction should be converted from one under Section 302 of the IPC to that under Section 304 of the IPC and his prayer is limited to this extent only. 4. 3. Shri Parasnath Das submits that since it is a case of single blow as is admitted by postmortem Dr. Narenda Hanote (PW-14), conviction should be converted from one under Section 302 of the IPC to that under Section 304 of the IPC and his prayer is limited to this extent only. 4. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned public prosecutor submits that this case will not fall within any of the exceptions of Section 300 of the IPC and, therefore, there are no grounds to convert conviction from one under Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 of the IPC . 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that PW-1 (Dasi Mandrah) states that Jitendra was son of his younger brother. The incident took place on 24.01.2015 at 09:00 PM. He was in his house. He had heard cries of Jitendra. He had fallen down in front of the house of Rajkumar Patil. Jitendra had informed that Babulal had stabbed on his chest. Rajkumar Patil bandaged his wound. When information was given by Jitendra and that time Rajkumar Patil and his wife were present. 6. PW-13 (Dr. Nirnay Pandey) who was posted as medical officer in District Hospital, Chhindwara categorically states that on examination he found an incise wound on righthand side of Jitendra's chest measuring 3x2x2 cm caused by hard and sharp object. Injury was caused within half an hour of examination. 7. PW-14 (Dr. Narendra Hanote) who conducted postmortem states that there was a cut on the T-shirt on front measuring 2.5x2 cm which was blood stained. Similarly, west below T-shirt which was of brown in colour, there was a hole measuring 0.2 x 2 cm. This west was also blood stained. The wound was on the right hand side of the chest 6 cm away from the right nipple and was 0.6x2.6x5 cm towards the sternum. His opinion was that death occurred because of excessive bleeding from the wound. This witness also stated that seized knife was sent for query report and he had given his opinion that injury could have been caused with the knife which was sent with the query report. He had seen the knife and sent it back to the concerned officer. 8. In the present case, seizure of knife is proved. Dr. This witness also stated that seized knife was sent for query report and he had given his opinion that injury could have been caused with the knife which was sent with the query report. He had seen the knife and sent it back to the concerned officer. 8. In the present case, seizure of knife is proved. Dr. Narendra Hanote (PW-14) stated that injury could have been caused with the said knife which was sent with query report. FSL report Exhibit P-31 makes a mention of the fact that knife article 'E' contains human blood. This fact is proved by PW- 15 (Bhupendra Singh Gulbanke), Inspector, police station - Pandurna who carried out the investigation. Thus, homicidal death is caused is not in dispute. 9. What is required to be looked into and with a view to be comprehensive, the only issue which required to be examined in the present case is as to whether causing a single injury can be said to be a case where Section 302 of the IPC will not be attracted and the same should be converted one under Section 304 of the IPC . 10. This issue is answered by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Balmiki @ Munna v. State of MP , AIR 1999 SC 3338 wherein it is held that "There is no principle that in all cases of single blow Section 302 of the IPC is not attracted. Single blow may, in some cases, entail conviction under Section 302 of the IPC , in some cases under Section 304 , IPC and in some other cases, under Section 326, IPC . The question with regard to nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is inflicted, are all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him. 11. To attract Exceptions under Section 300 of the IPC , it is necessary that the case should fall within one of the exceptions. 11. To attract Exceptions under Section 300 of the IPC , it is necessary that the case should fall within one of the exceptions. First exception is there should be grave and sudden provocation; second exception is that act should be in exercise of good faith of the right of private defence of person or property; third exception is if the offender being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice exceeds the power given to him by law; fourth exception is that if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel; and fifth exception is the person being the above the age of 18 years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. 12. In the present case, when the facts of the case are taken into consideration, then the case of the petitioner will not fall under any of the aforesaid exceptions. The prosecution story as narrated by PW-2, Rajkumar Patil that on 24.01.2015 at about 10:30 when he was inside his house along with his wife - Gyarsi Bai, they had heard noises outside their house and they came out, they found that Jintendra Mandrah lying in front of his house. He was blood stained and was saying that appellant - Babulal had stabbed him with a knife. PW-3 (Rameshwar) has stated about the injuries caused to Jitendra. PW-4 (Kiran Vaksar) stated that on 24.01.2015, at about 10:30 pm she was in her Myaka. Her mother Rashi and father Baburao along with brother - Jitendra were watching TV. Doorbell rang, Jitendra opened door and when he could not see anybody in the courtyard, then he came out the house. Then Babulal Chourey caused a stabbed wound in the chest of Jitendra and then started running. He was followed by Jitendra and, in turn, they were followed by this witness - Kiran Vaksar, her mother and her father. She has further deposed that Rajesh and Sanju had taken Jitendra to hospital after Gyarsi Bai had put cotton and bandaged the wound. 13. He was followed by Jitendra and, in turn, they were followed by this witness - Kiran Vaksar, her mother and her father. She has further deposed that Rajesh and Sanju had taken Jitendra to hospital after Gyarsi Bai had put cotton and bandaged the wound. 13. Thus, when the aforesaid facts and evidence are examined in the light of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300 of the IPC , then it is evident that neither there was any grave or sudden provocation, nor there was any act done in furtherance of any public duty. The same was also not done in exercise of private defence. It can also not be said that offence was committed without premeditation in sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, or there was any kind of consent of the deceased to the act committed by the appellant.