STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSHYAMLAL & ORS.

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 144 : 2025 INSC 377

                       State of Madhya Pradesh
                                  v.
                           Shyamlal & Ors.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1254 of 2024)
                               20 March 2025
           [Abhay S. Oka,* Ahsanuddin Amanullah and
                 Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       The High Court converted the conviction of respondents u/s.302 of
       IPC into the second part of s.304 of the IPC. Whether the judgment
       of the High Court requires interference.

                                  Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and second part of s.304 – The case
       of the prosecution was that the accused, with a common
       intention and object, came together and assaulted PW-1,
       PW-2, PW-3, PW-11, PW-12 and the deceased, on 01.11.1989 –
       The Trial Court convicted the respondents for the offences
       punishable u/s.147 and ss.452, 302, 325, and 323 r/w. s.149
       of the IPC – By the impugned judgment, the High Court
       proceeded to set aside the conviction of the respondents for
       the offences punishable u/s.302 r/w. s.149 of the IPC – The
       High Court converted the conviction u/s. 302 into the second
       part of s.304 of the IPC – Correctness:
       Held: The deceased was not admitted on the day of incident – In
       the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that the deceased
       complained of headache and was treated in the district hospital
       for twelve days and was discharged – While returning home along
       with PW-4, he again complained of a headache and was, therefore,
       admitted to the hospital, where he died on 15.11.1989 – Thus, the
       death was fifteen days after the incident – The post-mortem report
       records that the cause of death was asphyxia, but the exact cause
       of death could not be ascertained – Neither the cause of death
       mentioned in the post-mortem report nor the evidence of PW-17
       prove that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased resulted in his
       death – The medical evidence creates a serious doubt as to whether

* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                             145

              State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal & Ors.


     injuries allegedly inflicted by the respondents caused the death of
     victim – Therefore, there is a serious doubt whether even s.304
     of the IPC could have been applied, as the medical opinion does
     not support the theory of homicidal death of the deceased – That
     is why it is not possible to interfere with the judgment of the High
     Court directing that the respondents-accused should be let off for
     the offence u/s. 304, r/w. s.149 of the IPC, on the sentence that
     has been undergone – When the High Court decided the appeal
     in 2017, the incident was already twenty-eight years old – When
     this Court is deciding this appeal of the year 2024 (arising out of
     a special leave petition of the year of 2018), the incident is almost
     thirty-six years old – When the judgment of the High Court was
     delivered, at least five accused were above seventy years of
     age, and one of them was of the age of about eighty years – A
     substantial amount of Rs.16,000/- each has been imposed by the
     High Court by way of fine – Therefore, it will not be appropriate
     to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
     [Paras 12, 13 and 14]

     Appeals – Appeals against conviction – Old age of accused –
     Long lapse of time from commission of offence – Where
     accused is on bail – Priority to the appeals:
     Held: The old age of the accused and the long lapse of time from
     the commission of the offence can always be a ground available to
     give some priority to the appeals against conviction of the accused
     on bail – If the appeals against conviction where the accused are
     on bail and especially where a life sentence has been imposed
     are heard after a decade or more from its filing, if the appeal is
     dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused back to
     jail after a long period of more than a decade – Therefore, it is
     desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction
     where the accused are on bail should be given priority. [Para 15]

                              Case Law Cited
     Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed & Anr. v. State of Gujarat
     [2009] 8 SCR 719 : (2009) 7 SCC 254; Fatta & Ors. v. State of
     U.P. (1979) SCC (crl) 629 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860.
146                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                             List of Keywords
       Second part of s.304 IPC; Pendency of very old criminal appeals;
       Accused in prison; Accused on bail; Old age of accused; Long
       lapse of time from commission of offence; Life sentence.

                             Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1254 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2017 of the High Court
       of M.P. Principal Seat At Jabalpur in CRA No. 554 of 1994

                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Padmesh Mishra, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat
       Joshi, Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Argha Roy.
       Adv. for the Respondents:
       Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment

       Abhay S. Oka, J.

       FACTUAL ASPECTS
1.     The present appeal is preferred by the State Government. The
       respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections
       147, 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian
       Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). The Trial Court held the
       respondents accused as guilty. The Trial Court convicted the
       respondents for the offences punishable under Section 147 and
       Sections 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
       For the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section
       149 of the IPC, they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
       For other offences, separate punishments were imposed, which were
       ordered to run concurrently.
2.     Respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya
       Pradesh at Jabalpur. By the impugned judgment dated 24th August
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        147

              State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal & Ors.


     2017, the High Court proceeded to set aside the conviction of the
     respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with
     Section 149 of the IPC. The High Court converted the conviction
     under Section 302 into the second part of Section 304 of the IPC.
     The conviction for the other offences was confirmed. The High Court
     noted that the incident was of the year 1989. The first respondent,
     Shyamlal, was nearly eighty years old, and four other respondents
     were also above the age of seventy. The respondents were let off
     by the High Court with the sentence already undergone. A fine of
     Rs.16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand) each was imposed on the
     respondents out of which, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
     lakh) was ordered to be paid to the family of the deceased and a
     compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each to PW-12
     (Chiranjeev) and PW-2 (Ramadhar).
3.   The incident is of 1st November 1989 which happened at about 4 pm.
     It is alleged that the respondents, with a common intention and object,
     got together and assaulted PW-1 (Siroman), PW-2 (Ramadhar),
     PW-3 (Haripal), PW-11 (Jageshwar), PW-12 (Chiranjeev), and the
     deceased-Laxman. It is alleged that PW-1 had cut the tail of a buffalo
     belonging to the respondents. According to the prosecution’s case,
     the respondents first attacked PW-1, PW-3, and PW-11 while they
     were working in the field. Thereafter, PW-1 ran away. The respondents
     chased him and dragged PW-2, PW-12, and the deceased-Laxman
     out of their houses and assaulted them.
4.   PW-1, PW-3 and PW-11 suffered simple injuries. In the case of
     PW-2 (Ramadhar), the assault by the respondents resulted in the
     fracture of the ulna bone of the right hand. As regards the PW-12
     (Chiranjeev), as a result of injuries inflicted by the respondents, he
     suffered a fracture of the radius and ulna bones of the left hand.
     The deceased-Laxman was initially examined by the doctors and
     was discharged after treatment. But, on 2nd November 1989, he
     complained of vomiting, headache, and dizziness. He was admitted
     to the district hospital Chhatarpur and was discharged on 15 th
     November 1989. While returning home from the hospital on 15th
     November 1989, his condition deteriorated, and he complained of
     severe headache. He was admitted to the Chandla Hospital, where
     he died on the same night. It is the case of the prosecution that the
     respondent nos. 3 and 4 (accused nos. 3 and 5, respectively) had
     ballams, and the remaining accused had sticks in their hands. The
148                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses, including the injured
       eyewitnesses.

       SUBMISSIONS
5.     The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State pointed
       out that even assuming that the offence under the second part of
       Section 304 of the IPC was made out, the respondents were let off
       with undergone sentence of only seventy-six days. He submitted
       that conversion of the offence punishable under Section 302 into
       an offence under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC was not
       justified. Only because there was a time gap of fifteen days from the
       date of assault to the date of death of the deceased, it cannot be
       said that the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was
       not proved. The learned counsel submitted that the attack by the
       respondents was so brutal that the cumulative number of injuries
       inflicted by them on the eyewitnesses and the deceased was more
       than thirty-five, which were grievous in nature. He pointed out that the
       evidence of PW-17 Dr Baburam Arya, who examined the deceased
       shows that serious injuries were caused to the occipital bone of
       the deceased-Laxman. According to the post-mortem notes, the
       deceased suffered internal injuries on account of a blow delivered
       by the respondents. The learned counsel submitted that there was
       intention and knowledge on the respondents’ part; hence, conviction
       under Section 302 of the IPC ought to have been confirmed.
6.     The learned counsel submitted that it is well settled that one of the
       prime objectives of the criminal law is to impose adequate, just and
       proportionate punishment commensurate with the gravity and nature
       of the crime and the manner in which the offence was committed.
       In any event, punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the
       conscience of the Court. He relied upon a decision of this Court in
       the case of Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed & Anr. v.
       State of Gujarat1 and in particular, paragraph 99, which reads thus:
             “99. Finally, one more argument was advanced about
             the award of sentence to Liyakat Hussein alias Master
             Khudabax Shaikh (A-1). The object of awarding appropriate
             sentence should be to protect the society and to deter the


1    (2009) 7 SCC 254
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         149

              State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal & Ors.


           criminal from achieving the avowed object to (sic break
           the) law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected
           that the courts would operate the sentencing system so
           as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience
           of the society and the sentencing process has to be
           stern where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing
           meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely
           on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences
           will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and
           against the interest of society which needs to be cared
           for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the
           sentencing system.”
     The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment
     of the High Court cannot be sustained.
7.   The learned counsel appointed to espouse the respondents’ cause
     invited our attention to the findings recorded by the High Court and,
     in particular, what is held in paragraph 16. She pointed out that
     PW-17 (Dr Baburam Arya) had submitted a report stating that the
     deceased-Laxman had suffered simple injuries.
8.   The learned counsel also invited our attention to the cause of death
     mentioned in the post-mortem notes. It records that the deceased-
     Laxman died on account of asphyxia and that the cause of death was
     not discernible. Moreover, there was no evidence of internal damage
     to any of the organs. No chemical or poison was detected in viscera
     sent for chemical examination. The High Court, therefore, concluded
     that the injuries inflicted by the respondents on the deceased were
     simple in nature, and there was no intention to commit murder. The
     learned counsel submitted that since the incident was of the year
     1989 and since all the accused were 70 to 80 years old, the High
     Court imposed the punishment to the extent already undergone. She
     submitted that, after all, this Court was dealing with the incident that
     took place thirty-six years ago.

     CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
9.   We have perused the notes of evidence of material prosecution
     witnesses, especially the injured ones. Initially, there were eight
     accused. Accused no.4 died during the pendency of the appeal
     before the High Court. As stated earlier, the case of the prosecution
150                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       is that the accused, with a common intention and object, came
       together and assaulted PW-1 (Siroman), PW-2 (Ramadhar),
       PW-3 (Haripal), PW-11 (Jageshwar), PW-12 (Chiranjeev) and the
       deceased, on 1st November 1989 at about 4 pm. The accused
       were under the impression that PW-1 had cut the tail of a buffalo
       belonging to the respondents-accused. The case of the prosecution
       is that, initially, the respondents-accused attacked PW-1, PW-3 and
       PW-11 when they were working in the field. When PW-1 tried to
       run away, the respondents-accused dragged PW-2 (Ramadhar),
       PW-12 (Chiranjeev) and the deceased-Laxman out of their houses
       and again assaulted them. PW-3 (Haripal) and PW-11 (Jageshwar)
       sustained simple injuries. On the other hand, the injuries suffered by
       PW-2 and PW-12 were grievous injuries which resulted in fractures.
10. As stated earlier, the conviction of the respondents-accused has been
    brought down from Section 302 to second part of Section 304 of the
    IPC. The High Court has noted that the incident was of 1st November
    1989. The Trial Court convicted the respondents-accused on 25th April
    1994. The appeal against conviction remained pending for twenty-one
    years. It is pointed out that the respondents were on bail during the
    trial and the appeal. That is one circumstance taken into consideration
    by the High Court. The other circumstance considered is that when
    the High Court dealt with the appeal, the incident was twenty-eight
    years old. Four accused were approximately seventy years of age,
    and one was nearly eighty years of age, and that is the reason why
    the respondents have been let off on the sentence undergone by
    the High court, and a fine was imposed. While imposing the fine, the
    High Court relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Fatta
    & Ors. v. State of U. P.2. The judgment, which consists of only two
    paragraphs, reads thus:
             “In this appeal by special leave, the learned counsel for
             the appellant has pressed the appeal only on the question
             of the applicability of Section 302 read with Section 149
             IPC to the appellants other than Ramakant Rai. It was
             urged that according to the findings of the Court below,
             the occurrence took place in the disputed field which was
             claimed by both the parties. According to the prosecution



2   (1979) SCC (crl) 629
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         151

              State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal & Ors.


           case, the field in question was in the possession of the
           deceased Janardan and PW 1 and they had sown Arhar
           crop and had come to harvest the same. At that time the
           accused in a body arrived at the scene variously armed,
           with a view to dispossess the prosecution party by force.
           There was exchange of brickbats and ultimately one of
           the accused Ram Sewak who was armed with a gun, fired
           a shot which hit the right eye of Janardan as a result of
           which he fell down and died instantaneously. The appellant
           Ramakant Rai is said to have provided a cartridge to Ram
           Sewak before he fired the gun. In these circumstances,
           therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that Ram Sewak
           and Ramakant Rai had undoubtedly the common intention
           to cause murder of the deceased. As regards others, on the
           materials, we are satisfied that the occurrence took place
           over the possession of land claimed by both the parties.
           Apart from Ramakant Rai and Ram Sevak no other person
           of the Assembly took part in the assault on the deceased.
           Although some of the appellants were armed with pharsa
           and spear and one of the appellants with a pistol, but none
           of these weapons were used. In the circumstances of the
           present case, there can be no doubt that the appellants
           had gone armed in order to dispossess the prosecution
           party and cause such injury as may be necessary for
           achieving that object. But the evidence does not show that
           all the appellants shared the common object of committing
           the murder of Janardan. It is true that the mere fact that
           no overt act has been attributed to the members of the
           unlawful assembly, is not sufficient to disprove the charge
           under Section 149 IPC. But this question depends on the
           facts of each case. In the instant case, we are satisfied
           that at the most the appellants other than Ram Sewak
           and Ramakant Rai had merely the intention to cause an
           offence under Section 325 IPC and were, therefore, guilty
           of offence under Section 325/149 as also of rioting. The
           other question that has to be determined is as to what
           sentence should be awarded to the appellants. The
           appellants have served only 3 to 4 months and have
           been on bail throughout. It would not be conducive in
           the interest of justice to send them back to jail after a
152                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          lapse of 10 years. On the other hand, if the family of
          the deceased is heavily compensated, that will serve
          the socio-economic purpose which the modern trend of
          the policy of sentencing required. For these reasons,
          therefore, we alter the conviction of the appellants
          except Ramakant Rai from one under Section 302/149
          to Section 325/149 and reduce the sentence to the
          period already served. In lieu of sentence remitted,
          we impose a fine of Rs 5000 on each of the appellants
          in default to two years’ RI. The entire fine, if realised,
          shall be paid to PW 1, the widow of Janardan. The
          sentence under Section 147 is also reduced to the
          period already undergone.
          2. As regards Ramakant Rai, there is evidence of the
          eyewitnesses that he was the person who supplied
          cartridge to Ram Sewak in order to shoot Janardan. In
          these circumstances, Ramakant Rai is convicted under
          Section 302/34 and his sentence of life imprisonment
          is upheld under this section. With this modification, the
          appeal is dismissed. Fine to be paid in six months. After
          the fine is paid, the appellants shall be discharged from
          bail bonds.”
                                                 (emphasis added)

11. We have examined the evidence. We have perused the post-mortem
    notes of the deceased. PW-17 (Dr Baburam Arya) was working as an
    Assistant Surgeon in the hospital at Chandla at the relevant time. On
    2nd November 1989, the injured witnesses, as well as the deceased
    Laxman, were brought before him for medical examination. As stated
    by him, the deceased-Laxman suffered the following injuries:
          “Laxman had the following injuries on his body:-
          1.   Lacerated wound 4×.5×.5 cm, was on the back side
               of the middle of the skull.
          2.   Lacerated wound 2×.5×.5 cm, on the left elbow.
          3.   Lacerated wound 2×.5×.5 cm, on the upper one/third
               part of the first forearm.
          4.   Swelling 5 cm in circumference in the right forearm.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                           153

                State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal & Ors.


           5.    Lacerated wound 2×.2 cm in the middle of the left
                 foot. The patient complained of pain in the injury
                 about. Later on said that it was not lacerated wound,
                 it was just a scratch.
           6.    Lacerated wound, 3×.5×.5 cm, in a horizontal shape
                 on the right eyebrow.
           7.    Lacerated wound 2.5×.3 cm to the depth of the skin,
                 in line with the nose.
           8.    Lacerated wound 3×.3 cm on the right side of the
                 nose to the depth of skin.
                 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..”
12. His evidence makes it clear that the deceased was not admitted to
    the hospital on the date of the incident. He stated that at 6 pm on
    2nd November 1989, the deceased came to him and complained of
    nausea and vomiting sensation as well as headache. He stated that
    there was swelling on the right side of his face and the right side of
    his nose. After treatment, he was referred to the district hospital at
    Chattarpur for further treatment. It appears that he died in the night
    of 15th November 1989. In paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment,
    the High Court observed that the deceased was treated in the
    district hospital for twelve days and was discharged. While returning
    home along with PW-4, he again complained of a headache and
    was, therefore, admitted to the hospital at Chandla, where he died
    on 15th November 1989. Thus, the death was fifteen days after the
    incident. The post-mortem report records that the cause of death
    was asphyxia, but the exact cause of death could not be ascertained.
    Therefore, viscera was sent for chemical examination. The report
    of the State Forensic Laboratory dated 27th January 1990 records
    that any chemical or poison was not present in the viscera of lungs,
    liver, spleen, kidney, brain, heart, stomach, and intestine of the
    deceased-Laxman. That rules out the possibility of poisoning. What
    is important here is what PW-17 (Dr Baburam Arya) stated in his
    examination-in-chief. In paragraph 18, he stated:
           “18. All the injuries were before death. Laxman had died
           due to suffocation. It was difficult to give a definite
           reason.”
                                                        (emphasis added)
154                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Therefore, neither the cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem
       report nor the evidence of PW-17 prove that the injuries inflicted upon
       the deceased resulted in his death. Moreover, the death occurred
       15 days after the incident.
13. We are conscious of the fact that there is no appeal preferred
    by the accused. But the fact remains that the medical evidence
    creates a serious doubt as to whether injuries allegedly inflicted by
    the respondents caused the death of Laxman. Therefore, there is
    a serious doubt whether even Section 304 of the IPC could have
    been applied, as the medical opinion does not support the theory
    of homicidal death of the deceased. That is why it is not possible
    to interfere with the judgment of the High Court directing that the
    respondents-accused should be let off for the offence under Section
    304, read with Section 149 of the IPC, on the sentence that has
    been undergone. As noted earlier, when the High Court decided
    the appeal in 2017, the incident was already twenty-eight years old.
    When we are deciding this appeal of the year 2024 (arising out of
    a special leave petition of the year of 2018), the incident is almost
    thirty-six years old.
14. When the judgment of the High Court was delivered, at least five
    accused were above seventy years of age, and one of them was of
    the age of about eighty years. A substantial amount of Rs.16,000/-
    each has been imposed by the High Court by way of fine. Therefore,
    it will not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment of
    the High Court.

       POST SCRIPT
15. In all the major High Courts in our country, there is a huge pendency
    of criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal. Considering
    the pendency of very old criminal appeals, priority is usually given
    to the hearing of the appeals where the accused are in prison. The
    appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail take a
    backseat. However, a right balance has to be struck by taking up
    for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals against conviction
    where accused are on bail. The old age of the accused and the
    long lapse of time from the commission of the offence can always
    be a ground available to give some priority to the appeals against
    conviction of the accused on bail. If the appeals against conviction
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      155

                 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal & Ors.


     where the accused are on bail and especially where a life sentence
     has been imposed are heard after a decade or more from its filing, if
     the appeal is dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused
     back to jail after a long period of more than a decade. Therefore,
     it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction
     where the accused are on bail should be given priority.
16. The appeal is dismissed.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan