IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 19 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7199 of 2019 BUNDELA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Dhirendra Singh Niranjan- learned Counsel for appellants.

Dr. (Ms.) Anjali Gyanani- learned Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.

JUDGMENT Per: Justice Hirdesh This instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.06.2019 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.67 of 2016. By the impugned judgment, appellant No.1- Bundela was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in case of default, an additional one year of rigorous imprisonment. Similarly, appellant No.2- Gendalal was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in case of default, an additional one year of rigorous imprisonment.

2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 11.12.2015, complainant Narayan Singh brought his unconscious father, Khilan Singh, to the Rajpur Outpost of Kachnar Police Station. He informed the police that Khilan Singh had gone to the field in the morning to attend the call of nature, where he had a verbal altercation with the appellants, Bundela and Gendalal, who are from the same village. As Khilan Singh was returning home, the appellants stopped him, and Bundela abused him. Upon objection from Khilan, Bundela struck him on the left side of his head with a stick, causing bleeding. Khilan fell to the ground. Gendalal also struck him on the forehead with a stick, causing further injuries and bleeding. Khilan Singh fell unconscious, and the appellants ran toward the field. The incident was witnessed by Narayan Singh, Arvind Ahirwar, and Santosh Dangi. After the attack, Bundela and Gendalal ran away.

3. On the basis of the complainant's report, Assistant Sub-Inspector Amarchandra Sharma (PW12), posted at PS Rajpur, registered FIR vide Crime No. 56 of 2015 under Sections 324, 323, 294, 341, 506-B, and 34 of IPC. The FIR was later transferred to PS Kachnar, where it was registered as Crime No. 234 of 2015 under Sections 307, 324, 294, 341, 506-B, and 34 of IPC. After Khilan Singh succumbed to his injuries during treatment, Section

302 IPC was added to the charges.

4. The trial Court examined 18 prosecution witnesses and various documents, including the postmortem report and FSL report, and after completing the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.

5. The appellants, dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, filed this appeal, contending that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate the evidence and that the contradictions in the prosecution’s case make it doubtful. They also contended that the evidence from eyewitnesses PW-4 Narayan Singh and PW-6 Arvind Ahirwar, both of whom are related to the deceased, is unreliable. Additionally, it was argued that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have resulted from a fall, not an intentional attack, and that the offense should fall under Section 304 Part II of IPC, rather than Section 302 of IPC.

6. The learned counsel for the State, however, argued that the death of Khilan Singh was homicidal, as confirmed by the postmortem report. The injuries inflicted on the deceased were intentional and not accidental. The appellants acted in furtherance of a common intention to kill the deceased, as both struck him with sticks, causing fatal injuries. The trial Court’s judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC was supported by the medical evidence and the eyewitnesses.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The main issues for determination in this appeal are:

(i) Whether the death of the deceased, Khilan Singh, was homicidal in nature?

(ii) Whether the appellants, i