IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2986 of 2014 SMT. PHOOLMATI SINGH GOND Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Atish Yadav - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the sole appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Devsar, District Singrauli, in Sessions Trial No. 88/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.

Facts of the case, in brief, are as under:

2. The complainant, Krishnapratap, lodged an FIR stating that on

22.03.2012 at about 06:00 a.m., his wife Phoolmati (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”) went somewhere with his daughter, Bharti. The complainant searched for her and brought the appellant back home from the house of Shivmurat Kushwaha. In the evening, as her mental condition was not stable, on the advice of others, the hands of the appellant were tied with a rope. On the next day, i.e., 23.03.2012 at about 07:30 a.m., the appellant untied herself and inflicted a blow with an iron Khurpa on Kusumkali, the first wife of the complainant. The incident was witnessed by the complainant and his nephew, Arjun. The complainant immediately informed the police, on the basis of which Merg Intimation No. 30/12 (Ex. P/1) was registered. Consequently, an FIR bearing Crime No. 126/2012 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC (Ex. P/2). After registration of the FIR, statements of witnesses were recorded and the dead body was sent for postmortem.

3. Upon completion of the investigation, and on the basis of the material collected, the Investigating Officer found a prima facie case against the accused and filed a charge sheet before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for the alleged offence of murder. Since the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed under Section

209 of Cr.P.C. and was registered as Sessions Trial No. 88/2012.

4. Upon committal, the case was transferred and placed for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who framed a charge vide order dated 20.03.2013 under Section 302 of IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. The appellant-accused did not examine any witness in defence nor exhibit any document.

6. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced her as mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.

7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not challenging the findings of the trial Court regarding the incident, cause of death, injuries, involvement, or relationship with the deceased. The challenge is confined to the conviction under Section 302 of IPC. It is contended that the appellant assaulted the deceased with an iron Khurpa, no deadly weapon was used, and there was no prior enmity between the parties. The incident was not pre-planned or premeditated. Therefore, the offence would fall under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC. It is further submitted that the appellant has already undergone more than seven years of imprisonment, and thus, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

8. Learned Government Advocate oppo