IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 395 of 2009 RAJU KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Mukesh Pandey - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Atma Ram Bain - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panna, District Panna (M.P.), whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and simple imprisonment for one month respectively along with fine, with default stipulations.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the incident in question occurred in the year 2008 at village Magraila Khurd. The prosecution case reveals that the dispute between the parties arose out of a petty and trivial issue relating to taking of vegetables, which suddenly escalated into a quarrel. The complainant Laxmibai, wife of Bholi Kachhi, was present at her house at about 03:00 PM along with her husband and daughter Vandana. At that time, Kallu Bai came near the door of the complainant and started abusing her, alleging that vegetables were taken by the complainant. Due to this, a sudden altercation took place between them. It is alleged that during the course of the quarrel, accused Raju Kachhi was came and by an axe caused injury to husband of Bholi Kachhi by the blunt side of the axe. Other accused persons also intervened and caused injuries to Vandna. An FIR was lodged and the injured persons were medically examined. One fracture injury on the clavicle bone of Laxmibai was found. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.

3. The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded false implication, contending that the complainant party was the aggressor and injuries were also caused to the accused persons during the same occurrence.

4. After appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above.

5. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1, against whom the main allegation of causing injury by axe was attributed, expired on 13.10.2019 due to sudden cardio-respiratory arrest. Accordingly, the appeal stands abated against appellant No.1.

6. It is further noteworthy that appellant Nos.2 and 3 are women, and they have remained on bail throughout the trial and appeal proceedings and have not undergone any actual jail sentence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel on a trivial issue without any pre-meditation of mind. Learned trial tourt committed error to apply the principle of section 34 of the IPC. The appellants have been facing the ordeal of criminal proceedings since the year 2008, i.e., for more than sixteen years. The main accused has already expired. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are women, first-time offenders and deserve leniency. Hence, prayer is made to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining or enhancing the fine amount.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the incident occurred without premeditation in the minds of the accused, therefore, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the essential requirements of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons are liable to be punished for their individual acts only, hence, the present accused cannot be punished for the acts of the other co-accused. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in punishing the accused with the aid of Sec