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 6

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7177 of 2018

<>

MUKESH VISHWAKARMA

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Appearance:

<>

S

<>

hri Neelam Kumar Shah - Advocate for the appellant.

<>

Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

<>

<>

JUDGMENT

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen

<>

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

No.27944/2025, which is third application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail to the appellant.

2. Accordingly, I.A. No.27944/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.

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

final disposal at motion stage.

4.

<>

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is filed by the

appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 13.11.2017 passed by

learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.), in Sessions Trial

No.34 of 2016, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under

Sections 302 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act and has been

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and R.I. for three years respectively

1 CRA-7177-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:870

with fine of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.

5. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as under:-

5.1 On 25/09/2015, complainant Vijay Vishwakarma (PW-1) lodged a report

at Police Station Kamla Nagar, Bhopal to the effect that his brother-in-law

Arjun had come to his house to meet him from Devas. He told his brother-in-

law that food was still being cooked, "let's go to have Rajshree," and as they

started leaving the house towards the shop, his brother-in-law ( jija) accused

Mukesh Vishwakarma, whose house is also next door, was sitting by the tap

outside the house; he said to bring Rajshree for him too. On the

complainant's saying "you come along too," the accused said to him, "I

understand what is in your mind," and after that, the accused pushed him;

then the complainant also pushed the accused saying "go home." Then the

accused went to his house and came back with a knife and attacked his elder

brother Angoor Singh, stabbing a knife on his neck, as a result of which

Angoor Singh's neck was slit, blood started flowing out; then his nephew

Mohar Singh and brother-in-law took Angoor Singh to the hospital for

treatment.

5.2 On the basis of aforesaid report, an offence has been registered against

the appellant vide Crime No. 492/2015 under Section 307 IPC and First

Information Report Exhibit P/1 was recorded. Mohar Singh (PW-4) and

Arjun Singh (PW-5) took the deceased Angoor Singh to the hospital in the

injured condition for treatment, where after examination by the doctor,

Angoor Singh was declared as dead.

5.3 The Investigating Officer Inspector Mukhtiyar Qureshi (PW-12)

2 CRA-7177-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:870

investigated the case, went to the deceased's residence, prepared Exhibit P-3

Safina form, summoned witnesses to the scene, prepared the inquest

panchnama of the body as Exhibit P-4, seized blood-stained soil and plain

soil from the scene in presence of witnesses and prepared seizure memo

Exhibit P-5, site map Exhibit P-2 and filled P.M. form, sending the

deceased's body to hospital for postmortem.

5.4 After due investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before JMFC,

Bhopal. JMFC, Bhopal committed the case to the Court of Sessions where

the aforesaid charges have been framed against the appellant under Sections

302 of the IPC and 25(1-b)(b) of Arms Act.

5.5 The appellant abjured the guilt, pleaded false implication and prayed

for trial.

5.6 The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence

available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned

herein above vide impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record in proper

perspective and committed error while convicting the appellant for the

aforesaid offences. It is submitted that Mohar Singh (PW-4) and Arjun Patwa

(PW-6) have stated in their statements that they were present at the spot at

the time of the incident and after the incident, they took the injured to the

hospital for treatment but they did not admit that the incident occurred in

their presence, which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. He further

submits that Vijay Vishwakarma (PW-1) has stated that the accused stabbed

3 CRA-7177-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:870

the deceased on his neck on 25/09/2015 and asked his brother-in-law Arjun

Singh and Angoor Singh to take him to the hospital. Brother of the deceased

namely Azad Vishwakarma (PW-2) also stated that the accused grabbed the

hairs of the deceased and stabbed him with a knife; thereafter, the deceased

was taken to the hospital in injured condition by his son Mohar Singh (PW-

4) and Arjun Singh (PW-6), where Angoor Singh was declared as dead.Dr.

Mrs. Kelu Grewal (PW-7) who performed Post Mortem of the deceased

admitted in her statement that during internal examination, a liquid was

found in the stomach of the deceased, which was smelling like liquor and

internal/external genitals were found normal. Thus, it is clear that the

incident occurred while consuming the alcohol in the house of Vijay and

when the daughter of the accused arrived, Vijay pushed her in intoxicated

condition as a result of which she sustained injury, which led to scuffle

between the parties and then Vijay and his brother-in-law beat and pushed

the accused. Thereafter, Vijay assaulted the accused by means of knife, when

deceased came to rescue him, he also sustained injuries and ultimately

succumbed to them.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the

statements of the eye-witnesses to the incident, it has been stated that during

the dispute between the accused and his brother-in-law over 'Rajshree

gutkha' leading to the incident and the deceased's died on account of

excessive bleeding. In this, no culpable intent or act of murder on the part of

the accused is apparent. The accused has been falsely implicated in this case,

and the admissions made by the witnesses during cross-examination render

4 CRA-7177-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:870

their chief examination statements self-contradictory and, therefore, the

impugned judgment and conviction is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned Shri B.K. Upadhyay, learned Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-State, in his turn, supports the impugned

judgment and submits that after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence

which has been produced by the prosecution, the trial Court has properly

convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of

Arms Act and there is no such mistake in the finding of the trial Court and

there are sufficient evidences against the present appellant to confirm his

conviction and as such, the same does not call for any interference and the

appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

record.

10. Vijay Vishwakarma (PW-1) stated in his examination-in- Chief that his

brother-in-law Mukesh Vishwakarma's house is also in his neighbourhood.

Food was being cooked at home so he told his brother-in-law, Arjun that they

should go and eat 'Rajshree'. He has further deposed that when they left the

house and were going to the shop, the accused Mukesh Vishwakarma was

sitting at the tap outside the house and said, please bring Rajshree for him

also. Then he told the accused to come along with him. The accused then

told him that he understood what he was thinking and after this, accused

pushed him and then he also pushed the accused. This witness has further

stated that the accused went to his house and was immediately came out of

the house, at that time, both his hands were behind his back. As soon as the

5 CRA-7177-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:870

accused came, he stabbed his brother with a knife, which hit his brother's

neck. At that time his brother was filling water from the tap. When he ran to

intervene, the accused stabbed him too, which hit him twice on his right

hand. After that the accused ran away. Then he told his brother-in-law Arjun

to take Angoor Singh to the hospital. He had lodged the report, which is an

Exhibit P-1.

11. The above fact has also been corroborated by Mohar Singh

Vishwakarma (PW-4) in his statement. He has also stated that he took

Angoor Singh to the hospital, where the doctors declared Angoor Singh

dead. He has admitted in paragraph 2 of his cross-examination that there is

no dispute between accused Mukesh and deceased Angoor Singh before the

incident. He has also admitted in paragraph 4 that there is no enmity between

deceased Angoor Singh and accused Mukesh. There is no any fact in his

cross-examination to disbelieve this witness.

12. Bheema Vishwakarma (PW-5) has also supported the prosecution story

and stated that when his uncle Angoor Singh had come to wash his hands

and face at the tap, accused Mukesh came to the tap and stabbed the

deceased Angoor Singh on his neck with a sharp knife and then fled. After

that, Arjun Singh and Mohar Singh took Angoor Singh to Hajela Hospital,

where doctors declared Angoor Singh dead.

13. The above fact has also been corroborated by Arjun (PW-6) in his

statement.

14. Dr. Kelu Girwal (PW-7) had conducted the postmortem. According to

this witness, the diseased Angoor Singh died of shock and hemorrhage due to

6 CRA-7177-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:870

neck injury. The injuries were likely caused by a sharp heavy weapon. The

death was homicidal in nature.

15. Anil Kumar Rawat (PW-8) has stated that he brought the viscera, pant

and shirt of the deceased Angoor Singh from Hamidia Hospital in two

separate sealed bags which had seized by Head Constable Indramani Manjhi.

16. The above fact is also corroborated by the evidence of Rakesh Kumar

Meena (PW-9) and Indramani Majhi (PW-13).

17. R.N. Singh Chauhan (PW-10) has stated in his examination-in-Chief

that on 25.09.2015, he was posted as Sub Inspector in the Police Station

Kamla Nagar and on the said date, Vijay Vishwakarma came to Police

Station and lodged a report against accused Mukesh Vishwakarma stating

that accused had stabbed Angoor Singh in the, resulting in slit neck. Based

on the said report, he registered a First Information Report (Exhibit P-1) for

Crime No.492/2015 under Section 307 of IPC. This witness has admitted in

his cross-examination that it is not mentioned in the report that Mohar Singh

and Arjun Singh saw the incident. But here, it would be necessary to mention

that merely on the basis of the above fact, it cannot be concluded that the

incident was not seen by Mohar Singh (PW-4) and Arjun (PW-6). Apart

from this, it is also noteworthy that in the First Information Report, it has

been mentioned that both of them took Angoor Singh to the hospital. From

this, it is clear that both these witnesses were present at the time of

occurrence of the incident.

18. Indramani Majhi (PW-13) has stated in his deposition that on

25.09.2015, he was posted as Head Constable at Kamla Nagar Police Station.

7 CRA-7177-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:870

On the said date, the informant Mohar Singh informed that his relative had

stabbed his uncle Angoor Singh. He was taken to Hajela Hospital, where

after examining by the doctor, he was declared dead. On the basis of the said

information, inquest number 42/15 was registered which is Exhibit P-8.

19. Thus, it is also clear from the statements of Mohar Singh Vishwakarma

(PW-4) and Arjun (PW-6) that they took Angoor Singh to the hospital where

doctors declared Angoor Singh as dead. Thus, in this case, Vijay

Vishwakarma (PW-1), Mohar Singh Vishwakarma(PW-4), Bhima (PW-5),

Arjun (PW-6) have been presented by the prosecution as eye witnesses of the

incident whereas Azad Vishwakarma(PW-2) and Santosh (PW-3) were not

the eye witnesses. Thus, Vijay Vishwakarma (PW-1), Mohar Singh

Vishwakarma(PW-4), Bhima (PW-5) and Arjun (PW-6) have seen the

accused committing the crime. The incident took place on 25th January,

2015 at 8:30 pm whereas the information was given to the police station at

21: 10 hours on the same date. The above information was given by Vijay

Vishwakarma. In the F.S.L. report (Exhibit P-21), human blood has been

found on the knife seized from the accused. The knife seized from the

accused has been identified as D in the FSL report, whereas the blood stained

soil seized from the scene of incident has been identified as A .B. group. The

blood was found on on both article A and D. Thus the case of the prosecution

is duly corroborated by the FSL report that the blood of the deceased was

found on the knife seized from the accused.

20. The main argument put forth by the accused is that the incident took

place on a spur of moment between the deceased, his brothers and the

8 CRA-7177-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:870

accused. There was no pre-meditation of mind or intention of the accused to

kill the deceased. For this reason, the act of appellant will not fall under

Section 302 of the IPC but will fall under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The

above argument of learned counsel of the appellant is not acceptable,

because in this case there is no evidence which shows that there was a fight

between the deceased and the appellant. Rather, as per the evidence on

record, the appellant went inside his house and immediately came back with

a knife and thereafter stabbed the deceased on his neck. Number of injuries

are not necessary for conviction under Section 302 of IPC, rather intention is

necessary. To assess the intention, it will be seen where the injury was

caused and which weapon was used and which part of the body has been

injured. In this case, the accused has injured deceased Angoor Singh on his

neck with a deadly weapon i.e. knife. It shows the intention of the accused. It

has been held by the Supreme Court in case of State of M.P. Vs. Kalicharan

<>

and Others (2019) 6 SCC 809

<>

that "as held by this Court in a catena of

decisions, even in case of a single blow, but on the vital part of the body, the

case may fall under Section 302 IPC and the accused can be held guilty for

the offence under Section 302 IPC.

21. The Supreme Court in case of Stalin Vs. State represented by the

<>

Inspector of Police (2020) 9 SCC 524

<>

has held as under:-

"From the decisions of the Supreme Court, it emerges, that there is

no hard and fast rule, that in a case of single injury, Section 302

IPC would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. The nature of injury, the part of the

body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury,

are the indicators of the fact, whether the accused caused the death

of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. It cannot

be laid down as a rule of universal application, that whenever the

death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled

9 CRA-7177-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:870

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)

<>

JUDGE

<>

out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case, and the

events which precede, will also have a bearing on the issue,

whether the act by which the death was caused was done with an

intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause

death, but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of the

circumstances, which will decide the nature of offence."

22. Thus, in view of foregoing analysis and in the light of decision passed

by the Supreme Court in case of Stalin (supra),

<>

we are of the opinion that the

prosecution could lead credible evidence and proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the present appellant is guilty for committing the aforesaid

offences. Thus, we do not find infirmity or illegality in the impugned

judgment, which warrants interference by this court. Therefore, appeal fails

and is here by dismissed.

<>

Rao

10 CRA-7177-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:870