DhaniraM @ Kallu Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.14/2026, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000/-.

The prosecution case is that on 18.10.2025 at about 12:30 p.m., the complainant Harprasad Verma was returning home after taking a bath in the Dudhi River, when the appellant allegedly demanded ₹200/- for consuming liquor. On the complainant refusing to pay, the appellant abused and assaulted him with fists and blows, causing injuries on his left wrist, knee, waist and shoulder. It is further alleged that while leaving, the appellant threatened to kill the complainant, if he again refused to give him money. On the basis of the Dehati Nalishi, FIR was registered under Sections 296, 115(2), 119(1) and 351(3) of the BNS. During investigation, the complainant's X-ray revealed a fracture in his left shoulder, whereupon Section 117(2) of the BNS was added. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, and after trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of the offences under Sections 296, 119(1) and 351(3) of the BNS,2023 but convicted him under Section 117(2) of the BNS.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to the evidence on record and that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that there are material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the alleged demand of money, as the Dehati Nalishi mentions ₹200/- whereas the complainant, in his deposition, stated that ₹2,000/- was demanded. It is further contended that eye-witness Rakesh Kumar did not support the prosecution on material aspects and admitted that the complainant had fallen into a drain, while the Medical Officer also admitted that the injuries could have been caused by such a fall. It is also submitted that there was a dispute regarding labour wages and the appellant has been falsely implicated.

4 . Per contra, learned Panel lawyer supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. It is argued that the testimony of the injured complainant is reliable and stands corroborated by the medical evidence, particularly the X-ray report establishing fracture of the left shoulder. It is further submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the offence under Section 117(2) of the BNS beyond reasonable doubt and that the acquittal of the appellant for the remaining offences has no bearing on the conviction for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction and sentence be affirmed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

The principal contention of the appellant is that there are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence and that the complainant had sustained injuries due to an accidental fall. However, upon perusal of the evidence, it is evident that the prosecution case rests upon the testimony of the injured witness, Harprasad Verma, whose presence at the place of occurrence is natural and whose version regarding the assault by the appellant has remained substantially consistent. His testimony receives due corroboration from the medical evidence as well as eye witness Rakesh Kumar Ahirwar (PW-2) and Chandan Vishwakarma (PW-6). The Medical Officer found injuries on the complainant and the X-ray report clearly establishes fracture of the left shoulder, on the basis of which Section 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was rightly invoked. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence with regard to the amount allegedly demand or other peripheral aspects do not affect the core of the prosecution case or discredit the evidence relating to the assault.

The defence plea that the injuries were caused due to an accidental fall has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court. Although, the Medical Officer admitted that such injuries could be possible by a fall, the same by itself does not outweigh the consistent ocular evidence of the injured witness, which stands supported by Rakesh Kumar( PW-2) and Chandan Vishwakarma(PW-6). Similarly, the plea regarding previous enmity or labour dispute has remained a mere suggestion and no cogent material has been brought on record to probabilize false implication.

The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.14/2026 are affirmed.