IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1118 of 2016

BIFAIYA BAIGA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Surendra Kumar Khare - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Government Advocate for the

respondent/State.

ORDER a resident of Village Udhiya Mauhar Tola and suffering from paralysis, was cutting fodder in his field, Puniya Bai wife of Lalva Baiga came to take out the water from the hand pump. After taking out the water when Puniya Bai was returning back to her home accused Bifaiya Baiga came out of his house armed with Tangia (Axe) and started assaulting her, as a result of which Punia Bai fell down and thereafter accused returned back to his house. When Lalwa Baiga (husband of deceased Puniya Bai) came back, complainant Hariram informed him that accused Bifaiya Baiga had assaulted his wife Puniya Bai on account of old grudge by hitting her with a tangia.

Per: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen.

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 10.09.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol (M.P.), in S.T. No.383/2014, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation of 06 months' Rigorous

Imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as under:-

2.1 On 26.08.2014 at about 1:00 PM, when complainant Hariram, who was

2.2 Upon a report to this effect, Dehati Nalishi, Exhibit P-1 and Dehati Merg Intimation Exhibit P-2 were recorded. Thereafter, First Information Report Exhibit P-4 was recorded and the case was taken up for investigation.

3. Upon being charged under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant abjured his guilt and sought to contest further proceedings in the case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment dated 10.09.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol in S.T. No.383/2014 is against law and procedure, passed without minute examination of facts/evidence and proper legal provisions, and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the trial Court has failed to see the statement of Hariram (PW-4) who is eye-witness in this case because as per prosecution, he was paralyzed and even after he was paralyzed, he was cutting grass on his badi and after looking incident, he was silent for about 5 to 6 hours and has not stated anything to anybody, therefore, the said eye- witness was not reliable. According to the counsel for the appellant, the trial Court has failed to see material contradiction and omission between the prosecution witnesses. He further states that the trial Court has failed to see the statements of prosecution witnesses Lalva Baiga (PW-3), Ratnu Baiga (PW-5) and Semvati Baiga (PW-6). They are all hearsay and interested witnesses. According to him, the trial Court has further failed to see the F.S.L. report and Postmortem report because Dr. Amit Pyasi (PW-11) had opined that the cause of death was due to injury sustained on account of mar- peet which was homicidal in nature and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and appellant is liable to be acquitted.

5. On the other hand, 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 there is no such mistake in the finding of the trial Court and there are sufficient evidences against the present appellant to confirm the conviction and as such, it does not call for any interference and the app