Tejbhan Singh Gaud vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal

Shri Saket Kumar Kori, learned counsel for the appellant (through video conferencing) in Criminal Appeal No.7931/2025 and Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Government Advocate for the State are heard on I.A.No.8617/2026, which is the second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond.

2 Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the aforesaid application.

3 Prayer is not opposed by the other side.

4 Accordingly, I.A.No.8617/2026 is dismissed as withdrawn.

5 With consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, these appeals are finally heard.

6 These appeals are filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 31.01.2024 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.01/2022 convicting the appellant Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and the appellants, namely, Tejbhan Singh Gond, Arjun Singh Gond and Satyendra Singh Gond for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/-each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.

7 The prosecution case, in brief, is that during the Ganesh Visarjan Procession, a sudden altercation took place between the accused persons and Subhan Singh Gond on account of a sound box. It is alleged that all four accused persons took Subhan Singh Gond to the fields of Roop Singh where Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond picked up a Sarai Ka Danda lying at the spot and caused an injury to the head of Subhan Singh Gond. It is further alleged that Tejbhan Singh Gond, Arjun Singh Gond and Satyendra Singh Gond assaulted Subhan Singh Gond with kicks and fists, resulting in fractures of his ribs, as opined by Dr.Harshita Gupta (PW-8), who conducted the postmortem examination of Subhan Singh Gond (since deceased) vide Exhibit P/20.

8 Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the present case involves a sudden altercation and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants is liable to be altered from one under Section 302 and Section 302/34 of the IPC to one under Section 304 Part-II/34 of the IPC. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the testimony of Dr.Harshita Gupta (PW-8), who found one injury on the right parietal and frontal bones measuring 4 cm × 2 cm, with a fracture, along with a contusion over the right eye and fractures of both parietal bones. The doctor also found fractures of the 7th to 11th ribs, which resulted in disfiguration.

9 Learned Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellants.

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

11 Gulab Singh (PW-1) states that Subhan Singh Gond was his third son. The incident took place during the Ganesh Visarjan Procession. Subhan Singh Gond was participating in the said Procession, which was being taken out for Ganesh Visarjan. His grandson came running and informed him that four persons, namely, Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond, Tejbhan Singh Gond, Arjun Singh Gond and Satyendra Singh Gond were beating Subhan Singh Gond in the fields of Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond. However, in the FIR (Exhibit P/1), the names of the other accused persons are not mentioned and the FIR was lodged only against Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond. It is alleged that the other accused persons have been falsely implicated on account of old rivalry.

12 Gulab Singh (PW-1) in his cross-examination admits that he had lodged the report on the 21st. He states that he did not have complete information about the incident. After returning from Katni, he came to know about the death of his son. Two days after the death of his son, the police recorded his statement. At that time also, he did not have complete information about the incident. He states that he was informed by Dropadi, Meena, Shraddha and Satyendra that all four accused persons had assaulted Subhan Singh Gond.

13 Dropadi Bai (PW-2), after stating that all four accused persons had assaulted Subhan Singh Gond, admits that no dispute had taken place between the accused persons and the deceased Subhan Singh Gond until the Procession reached the house of Durga Singh. The DJ was being played and several boys were dancing to its tune. There was no altercation near the house of Durga Singh. The fields of Roop Singh are adjacent to the house of Durga Singh. This witness denies the suggestion that Subhan Singh Gond, under the influence of alcohol, had fallen down and was, therefore, admitted to the hospital.

14 Meenabai (PW-3) after stating in her examination-in-chief that all four accused persons had assaulted Subhan Singh Gond, admits that she had come to the Court alongwith her father and other witnesses. She further admits that she had reached the Court alongwith police personnel. Though she denies that she was being tutored but admits that she had not gone to the Police Station to lodge the report. She admits that her father had lodged the report. She further admits that whatever she is stating before the Court was also narrated by her to her father. The FIR (Exhibit P/1) was lodged by Gulab Singh (PW-1) on the basis of the version narrated by Meenabai (PW-3). There were about 200 persons participating in the Ganesh Visarjan Procession. She was walking behind the others and Subhan Singh Gond was not visible to her. She admits that she could not hear as to what was being said at the place of occurrence. She also admits that Satyendra Singh Gond, Tejbhan Singh Gond and Arjun Singh Gond were friends of Subhan Singh Gond and that there had never been any altercation between them in the past. She denies the suggestion that the names of the other accused persons were disclosed to her after the incident had taken place.

15 Santosh Dahiya (PW-4) states that when he switched off his DJ, an altercation took place between the accused persons and the deceased Subhan Singh Gond. He admits that due to the crowd, he could not hear as to who was saying what. He further admits in his cross-examination that he only heard cries and could not state between whom the dispute had occurred. He also admits that he had not witnessed the incident.

16 Ramesh Singh (PW-5) is a witness to the memorandum and seizure proceedings, etc. He states that the Sarai Ka Danda was recovered from an open place.

17 Indrabhan Singh (PW-6) states that Subhan Singh Gond was known to him and was the son of Gulab Singh. He further states that all the accused persons were known to him. At the time of the Ganesh Visarjan Procession, he was at home and later he came to know that some dispute had occurred on account of the DJ being switched off. Thus, it is evident that this witness is not an eyewitness and had not seen the incident.

18 Satyendra Singh (PW-7) states that Subhan Singh Gond was his uncle. The incident took place on the 20th during the Ganesh Visarjan Procession. According to this witness, his mother Dropadi Bai alongwith Meenabai and Shraddha were present at the place of the incident. When Dropadi Bai reached the place of the incident, the accused persons had already run away. His uncle died at Katni on the 22nd. Ramesh Singh is his maternal grandfather. He admits that a huge crowd had gathered in the fields of Roop Singh.

19 Dr.Harshita Gupta (PW-8) states that she conducted the postmortem examination of the body of the deceased Subhan Singh Gond vide Exhibit P/20 and found following injuries on his person:- (1) Head injury measuring 4 cm × 2 cm, with a depressed fracture and crackling with dark brown discoloration of the skin over the affected area. (2) Bruise over the right orbital region with heavy bluish discoloration. (3) Fracture of both parietal bones with slight oozing of blood through the parietal sutures. (4) Hemorrhage of the entire conjunctiva of the right eye. (5) Disfiguration of the posterior wall of the right side of the chest, with crackling present in the region of the 7th to 11th ribs on the right side. The doctor found that there was no blood on the vest and underwear of the deceased. All the injuries were on the right side of the body of the deceased. The doctor admits that the aforesaid injuries could also have been caused accidentally. In her opinion, the cause of death of Subhan Singh Gond was the head injury, which resulted in excessive blood loss.

20 Dr.Rajmani Patel (PW-9) states that he examined the injured Subhan Singh Gond when he was brought to the Community Health Centre-Barhi, District-Katni where he was posted as a Medical Officer. He found one swelling measuring 5 cm × 4 cm on the left side of the head caused by a hard and blunt object. He opined that the injury was simple in nature. The doctor, in his cross-examination, admits that the injury found on the body of Subhan Singh Gond was simple in nature.

21 Upon consideration of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that there was no prior enmity between the accused persons and the injured/deceased Subhan Singh Gond. The incident took place all of a sudden during the Ganesh Visarjan Procession on account of the playing of the DJ. The names of the other accused persons, except Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond, are not mentioned in the FIR although the FIR was lodged on 21.09.2021 at about 1:18 AM. As per the version contained in the FIR, Meenabai was present at the time of the incident. Meenabai admits that she had narrated the incident to the informant Gulab Singh, who lodged the FIR as she had witnessed the incident. However, Gulab Singh did not mention the names of the other accused persons in the FIR.

22 Thus, conviction of the appellants, namely, Tejbhan Singh Gond, Satyendra Singh Gond and Arjun Singh Gond, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, is not made out. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.01/2022 vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2024, insofar as it relates to the appellants, namely, Tejbhan Singh Gond, Satyendra Singh Gond and Arjun Singh Gond, deserves to and is hereby set aside. The appellants, namely, Tejbhan Singh Gond, Satyendra Singh Gond and Arjun Singh Gond are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.

23 The injuries are attributable to the appellant Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond. Though it is argued that no bloodstains were found on Sarai Ka Danda, there is an unrebutted eyewitness account that the incident took place all of a sudden when the accused Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond picked u p Sarai Ka Danda lying in the fields of Roop Singh and struck Subhan Singh Gond on his head with the said Danda.

24 When all the facts and circumstances of the case are taken into consideration then it is evident that the altercation took place over an innocuous issue concerning non-playing of the DJ during the Ganesh Visarjan Procession, therefore, the present case will fall within the ambit of the fourth exception to Section 300 of the IPC.

25 When all these facts are tested on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dharam Pal & Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh , (2008) 17 SCC 337 then it is evident that there was no premeditation and that the fight arose in connection with playing of the DJ. There also appears to have been no intention on the part of the appellant Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond to cause the death of the deceased Subhan Singh Gond and, therefore, the fourth exception to Section 300 of the IPC is applicable.

26 Accordingly, conviction of appellant Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond is altered from one under Section 302 of the IPC to one under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. The appellant Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond is in jail. He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.

27 Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.2585/2024, Criminal Appeal No.3253/2024 and Criminal Appeal No.7930/2025 filed by the appellants, namely, Tejbhan Singh Gond, Arjun Singh Gond and Satyendra Singh Gond, respectively, are allowed. Criminal Appeal No.7931/2025 filed by the appellant Ramcharan @ Guljari Singh Gond is disposed of in terms of the directions as mentioned in Paragraph No.26 of this judgment.

28 Let record of learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.