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 16

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2477 of 2017

<>

BANTU BASOR AND OTHERS

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Appearance:

<>

Smt. Namrata K. Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants.

<>

Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

<>

ORDER

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen

<>

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal of I.A.

No.783/2026, which is third application filed on behalf of appellant No.2

Patiraj Basor and appellant No.3 Udal Basor for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail.

2. Accordingly, I.A. No.783/2026 is dismissed as withdrawn.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is heard

finally.

4. This appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment

dated 12.04.2017 passed in S.T. No.501000/2016 by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Devsar, District Singrauli (M.P.) whereby appellants have

been convicted and sentenced in the following terms:-

1 CRA-2477-2017NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5580

Conviction

<>

Sentence

<>

Section Act Imprisonment Fine

Imprisonment

in lieu of fine

302/34 I.P.C.

Life

Imprisonment

Rs.2,000/-

R.I. for

6 months

323/34 I.P.C.

R.I. for 3

months

Rs.1,000/-Nil

5. Prosecution story in short is that on 02.05.2016, the complainant's

father Motilal Basor had gone to the house of his cousin brother Hridaylal

Basor to attend a 'Chauth' party on invitation where at around 03.00 p.m.

over some issue, accused persons namely Bantu Basor, Patiraj Basor and

Udal Basor started fighting with his father. After getting the information,

complainant and his brother Ramnaresh Basor went to Hridaylal's house at

village Godwali, then they saw that Bantu Basor, Patiraj Basor, and Udal

Basor were fighting with their father Motilal. When they tried to stop them

from fighting, Bantu Basor, Patiraj Basor, and Udal Basor started abusing

them and threatened to kill them and started beating to his brother Ram

Naresh and him with sticks in front of Hridaylal Basor's house, due to which,

injuries caused to his brother Ram Naresh on his head and left eye. He also

suffered injuries on his shoulder and arm due to the beating. Upon receiving

the information, the police arrived in a 100 vehicle and brought him and his

brother Ram Naresh to PHC Bargawa. Dehati nalishi of the above incident

was lodged at PHC Bargawa by complainant Ramesh Kumar Basor on

02.05.2016 at 19:00 hours. On the basis of which, FIR (Ex.P-3) was

registered at Police Station Bargawa, District Singrauli vide Crime

No.177/2016 for commission of offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 307

2 CRA-2477-2017NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5580

and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the MLC was done of injured Ramesh

and Ramnaresh at Bargawa Hospital and injured Ramnaresh was referred

from Bargawa Hospital to Baidhan Hospital where he died on 02.05.16 at

8.00 pm. After the death of Ramnaresh, Dehati Marg No.0/16 (Ex.P-14) was

registered on 02.05.16 and Investigating Officer had prepared the

Panchanama of dead body. Spot map was prepared and the blood stained and

plain soil was seized from the spot. After receiving the Postmortem report of

the deceased and recording the statements of the witnesses, also seized a lathi

which was used by the accused persons.

6. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet had been filed

under Section 302, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC on 07.06.2016 and after

committal of the case, Session Case No.501000/16 was registered before trial

Court. Trial Court had framed the charges against the accused persons under

Section 302/34, 323/34, 294 and 506 of IPC. After completion of trial, trial

Court convicted the accused persons under Section 302/34 and 323/34 of

IPC.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has

failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, benefit of doubt

ought to have been granted, even otherwise there are material contradiction,

improvements, omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses,

therefore, they ought to have been disbelieved. There is no direct or indirect

evidence against the appellants, therefore, trial Court on circumstantial

evidence convicted the appellants. The trial Court has failed to considered

3 CRA-2477-2017NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5580

this factual aspect that Ramesh (PW-1) has admitted that there is counter

case registered against him under Section 325 of IPC for committing

grievous hurt to the Patiraj-appellant No.2. Looking to this fact alone, it is

crystal clear that there is counter blast case registered against the present

appellants. It is further submitted that the trial Court has not considered this

factual as well as legal aspect of the case that the incident had taken place as

a sudden provocation given by the complaint, therefore, the matter come to

the exception of Section 300 0f I.P.C., therefore, the case is not made out

against the present appellants. Learned trial Court has failed to consider this

factual aspect of the case that both the parties were enjoying the family

function and initially the complainant party have assaulted to the appellants.

In fact the majority of members were assaulting to each other, therefore, it is

not clear that the offence was caused by appellants, therefore, the judgment

of conviction and sentence dated 12.04.2017 be set aside and appellants are

entitled to acquit in the interest of justice.

8. Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported

the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that the trial Court has properly

appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the

prosecution and found the guilty to appellants/accused persons under Section

302/34 and 323/34 of IPC.

9. Heard the counsel for the parties.

10. Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW-6), who medically examined firstly the

injured Ramesh Basor and Ramnaresh Basor, stated that he found one-one

4 CRA-2477-2017NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5580

injury on both arm of Ramesh Basor of reddish black in colour measuring

7x2 cm. He complained of neck pain, but no injury was found on

examination. He opined that the above injuries were inflicted by a hard and

blunt object. All the injuries were simple in nature and were occurred within

12 to 24 hours of examination. His report is Ex.P-20. This prosecution

witness also stated that on examination of injured/deceased Ramnaresh Basor

he found following injuries namely (i) three lacerated wounds in the parietal

region of the front of the head measuring 6x1 cm. each and deep bone, in

which a blood clot had accumulated and slight bleeding was occurring, and

the edges of the wound were irregular and sunken. (ii) A lacerated wound on

the left side and front of the head measuring 3x0.5 cm. and deep bone, in

which blood clots had accumulated and there was dried blood and the edges

of the wound were irregular and sunken. (iii) Blueness and swelling around

the left eye. (iv) A swollen injury near the left palm measuring 7x2 cm. He

opined that the condition of the injured/deceased Ramnaresh was critical, he

was unconscious and in a coma and was not in a position to give a statement.

He further opined that the injury No.1 and 2 were life-threatening, injury

number 3 and injury number 4 of the were simple in nature, all the injuries

were done within 4 hours of the examination. He stated that he advised to X-

ray. His report is Ex.P-21. This witness in his cross-examination has denied

that the head injuries sustained by the injured Ramesh could have been self-

inflicted. He also denied that the injuries sustained by the injured/deceased

Ram Naresh could have been caused by a fall. It means there is nothing in

his cross-examination on the basis of which can get any benefit.

5 CRA-2477-2017NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5580

11. Dr. Smt. Vimla Khes (PW-8) stated that she had conducted

postmortem and she opined that deceased Ramnaresh died due to shock of

the head injury.

12. Ramesh Kumar Basor (PW-1), who is the injured witness during

the incident, stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of incident he

went to the house of Hriday Lal Basor in invitation where many relatives

were present. When at about 04:00 p.m. he had started serving food and

drinks to the grandchildren and relatives, sister Urmila was also sitting for

taking meal. During servicing the food, some excess pulse fell on her plate.

Urmila got up and grabbed his collar and said "you have put so much pulse,

your father will eat it." She pounced on him, then accused, Bantu, Patiraj,

and Udal came with sticks and started assaulting to him. When his brother

Ramnaresh (deceased) tried to get them to leave and told them not to fight,

then accused Bantu, Udal, and Patiraj Basor beaten him with sticks and threw

him on the ground by causing severe head injuries. When he went to rescue

his brother, they assaulted him as well and he ran away and his uncle Nandlal

called the 100 dial and took him to Bargawa Hospital. He was referred to

Baidhan from the hospital, but Ramnaresh died on the way. He had lodged

dehati nalishi (ExP-1).

13. This witness in para 4 of his cross-examination denied that the

distance between his house and accused house is 1 Km. and he himself stated

that distance between his house and accused are 200 meters. In para 7 of his

cross-examination he admitted that a counter case was registered against him

6 CRA-2477-2017NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5580

under Section 325 of IPC and he alleged that he was accused of breaking of

hands of accused Patiraj by beating him, but in para 8 he denied that he and

his brother Ramnaresh had assaulted to Patiraj by sticks, due to which,

Patiraj's hand was fractured.

14. Lalle (PW-2), Nandlal (PW-3) and Hridaylal (PW-4) have turned

hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution.

15. Rajkumari Basor (PW-5), who is the sister of deceased Ramnaresh

Basor and injured Rameh Kumar Basor, stated that on the date of incident

Ramesh during serving pulse, serve more pulse in plate of Urmila, who

daughter of Bantu Basor, but Urmila did not took food and grabbed Ramesh

by the collar and began beating him. Due to this reason, the dispute started,

but some people intervened. She and her father Motilal Basor were present

there, then accused persons assaulted her father Motilal, who received

injuries on his head. After the incident her younger brother Ramesh went his

house and thereafter her elder brother Ramnaresh with younger brother

Ramesh came at the place of incident, then accused Bantu, Patiraj, Udal

Basor started beating her elder brother Ramnaresh, in which Ramnaresh got

head injuries. When the accused persons had beaten Ramnaresh and fallen

down, then Ramesh reached at the place of incident. She had also tried to

intervene, but accused persons had also beaten her, she received injury in her

head. In her cross-examination, she denied that she gave any statement to the

police.

16. Godhal @ Hiralal (PW-9) stated that police had prepared

7 CRA-2477-2017NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5580

panchnama (Ex.P-6) of dead body of Ramnaresh and also expressed that

Motilal was his nephew and he has died.

17. D.S. Chauhan (PW-7) stated that on 02.05.2016, he visited to PHC

Bargawa on information of Ramesh Basor, he registered a dehati nalishi

(Ex.P-1) vide Crime No.0/16 under Sections 294, 323, 506, 307/34 of IPC.

On basis of Dehati Nalihi, he also registered FIR (Ex.P-23) vide Crime

No.177/2016 against accused persons namely Bantu Basor, Patiraj Basor and

Udal Basor. Ramnaresh Basor died on 02.05.2016 at District Hospital

Baidhan. After receiving information, he registered Marg No.0/16 (Ex.P.-4)

under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 03.05.2016, he

registered original Marg No.32/16 (Ex.P-24) at Police Station Bargawan.

18. U.P. Singh (PW-8) is an Investigating Officer and on perusal of his

evidence, it appears that he had prepared Shav Panchnama (Ex.P-6).

Postmortem form (Ex.P-26) was filled by him for doing postmortem of

deceased Ramnaresh and he also recorded the statement of witnesses

Ramesh Kumar, Lalle Basor, Smt. Rajkumari Basor, Nandlal Baor, Motilal

Basor on 02.05.2016 and he recorded the statement of Hriday Lal Baor on

04.05.2016. He had visited at the place of incident on 03.05.2016 and seized

blood stained soil and plain soil from the place of incident. Seizure memo is

Ex.P-18. On said date he also recorded the memorandum statements of

accused Bantu Basor, Patiraj Basor and Udal Basor and seized lathi from

their possession before the witnesses and also he arrested the accused

persons and had prepared arrest memo i.e. Ex.P-15, Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17

respectively. On the same date i.e. on 03.05.2016, Constable Arvind Rawat

8 CRA-2477-2017NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5580

had produced the cloth of deceased Ramnaresh. He seized aforesaid cloth

(Ex.P-28). Seized articles were sent to the FSL, Sagar through letter

No.104/2016 of Superintendent of Police, Singrauli. In para 15 of his cross-

examination he admitted that when he arrested accused Patiraj Basor, then

Patiraj Basor told him that due to beaten by complainant his left hand was

fractured and also plastered. He also admitted that he had registered Crime

No.176/2016 against Ramesh Kumar and deceased Ramnaresh Basor and

challan No.150/2016 had been filed before the Judicial Magistrate R.P.

Singh. He also admitted in para 16 that counter case State Vs. Ramesh

Kumar Basor had been presented by him before the Court.

19. After perusal of evidence adduced by this witness, it appears that on

the information of the accused Patiraj Basor a crime was registered against

Ramesh Kumar Basor (PW-1) and deceased Ramnaresh Basor and it appears

that Patiraj Basor had also received injury during the incident.

20. Accused Patiraj Basor also examined himself as DW-1 and he stated

that deceased Ramnaresh and Ramesh Kumar Basor had come from the

village and started beating to them. Ramesh had assaulted him and caused

injury in his left hand wrist, neck and leg. Deceased Ramnaresh and Ramesh

had also been assaulted with his father and his father received injuries on his

back, leg and whole body parts. Deceased Ramnaresh and Ramesh had also

beaten to his brother Udal, who had also received injury. During the fighting

Ramesh assaulted him, but the stick did not hit him, the same hit to

Ramnaresh, due to which, Ramnaresh died. They had not assaulted.

21. Looking to the evidence of this witness, he only tried to get benefit

9 CRA-2477-2017NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5580

by receiving the injury during the fight, but looking to the whole evidence of

prosecution, specially Ramesh Kumar Basor (PW-1) and Rajkumari Basor

(PW-5), it appears that these witnesses had not given their correct evidence,

they only tried to save the accused persons from the murder of deceased

Ramnaresh.

22. As per evidence of Dr. A.K. Sharma (DW-2), it appears that he also

medically examined to accused Patiraj Basor, Bantu Basor and Udal Basor

on 02.05.2016, but on perusal of his evidence, it appears that no any external

injury was found by this witness on the body of Patiraj Basor and Bantu

Basor. All injuries were internal like swelling and contusion. In this

situation, it is not possible for prosecution witnesses that they explained the

injuries of the accused persons. As far as the injuries of the Urmila Basor is

concerned, it appears that one lacerated wound was found by this witness on

the head of Urmila, but Urmila is not an accused in this case.

23. After analyzing the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that since

altercation took place at the spur of moment and there is no history of any

previous enmity. Thus, murder was committed without premeditation in a

sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without offender

having taken undue advantage. Provision of Exception 4 to Section 300 of

IPC will be attracted. Thus, when these facts are taken into consideration,

then except for Ramesh Kumar Basor (PW-1) and Rajkumari Basor (PW-5),

all other eye witnesses Lalle (PW-2), Nandlal (PW-3) and Hridaylal (PW-4)

have turned hostile.

24. Looking to the aforesaid reason, it is appropriate to alter the conviction

from Section 302/34 of IPC to Section 304 Part-I read with section 34 of

10 CRA-2477-2017NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5580

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)

<>

JUDGE

<>

IPC.

25. Accordingly, looking to the fact that altercation was occurred

suddenly and there was no previous enmity, we alter the conviction from one

under Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304/34 Part-I IPC and direct the

appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each

and fine of Rs.5,000/- (fine thousand only) each, with default stipulation of

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. As far as conviction under

Section 323/34 IPC is maintained and need no interference.

26. In the above terms, with the aforesaid modification in the impugned

judgment dated 12.04.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.501000/2016, the

<>

appeal is allowed in part.

<>

<>

<>

27. The appellant No.1 Bantu Basor

<>

is on bail. His bail bonds are

cancelled. He shall surrender before the trial Court forthwith to undergo

remaining jail sentence as imposed aforesaid, failing which the trial Court

shall take necessary steps to take him into custody for serving remaining jail

sentence.

28. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.

sp/-

11 CRA-2477-2017NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5580