Murli Manohar Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

2 - Vijay Rathore S/o Ramesh Rathore Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Bajrang Para, Police Chowki Siliyari, Police Station Dharshiwa, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Dinesh Solanki S/o Puran Solanki Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Bajrang Para, Police Chowki Siliyari, Police Station Dharshiwa, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Rohit Solanki S/o Balchand Solanki Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Bajrang Para, Police Chowki Siliyari, Police Station Dharshiwa, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Amit Solanki S/o Puran Solanki Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Bajrang Para, Police Chowki Siliyari, Police Station Dharshiwa, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

6 - Puran Solanki S/o Late Premji Solanki Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Bajrang Para, Police Chowki Siliyari, Police Station Dharshiwa, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

7 - Hari Rathore S/o Late Mohanlal Rathore Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Siliyari, Police Chowki Siliyari, Police Station Dharshiwa, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶18

2

¶19

8 - Ratan Solanki S/o Premji Solanki Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Siliyari, Police Chowki Siliyari, Police Station Dharshiwa, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶20

--- Respondents

¶21

CRA No. 1422 of 2025

¶22

1 - Vijay Rathore S/o Ramesh Rathore Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward12, Bajrang Para, Police Chowki - Siliyari, Police Station - Dharshiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶23

2 - Dinesh Solanaki S/o Puran Solanki Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward12, Bajrang Para, Police Chowki - Siliyari, Police Station - Dharshiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶24

3 - Rohit Solanki S/o Balchand Solanki Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward12, Bajrang Para, Police Chowki - Siliyari, Police Station - Dharshiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶25

4 - Amit Solanki S/o Puran Solanki Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward-12, Bajrang Para, Police Chowki - Siliyari, Police Station - Dharshiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶26

5 - Puran Solanki S/o Late Premji Solanki Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward-11, Bajrang Para, Police Chowki - Siliyari, Police Station - Dharshiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶27

6 - Hari Rathore S/o Late Mohan Lal Rathore Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Siliyari, Police Chowki - Siliyari, Police Station - Dharshiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶28

7 - Ratan Solanki S/o Premji Solanki Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Siliyari, Police Chowki - Siliyari, Police Station - Dharshiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶29

--- Appellants

¶30

Versus

¶31

State of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., Police Station - Dharsiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶32

--- Respondent

¶33

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶34

3

¶35

____________________________ For Appellant in CRA 121/2026 :	____________________________ Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, Advocate
For Appellants in CRA 1422/2025 : and respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in CRA 121/2026	Mr. B.P. Singh, Mr. Vidya Bhushan soni and Mr. Shikhar Bakhriyar, Advocates
For Respondent/State :	Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶36

________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶37

Judgment on Board

¶38

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶39

09.02.2026

¶40

1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and common judgment, this Court is disposing of both these appeals by a common judgment.

¶41

2. CRA No. 121 of 2026 has been filed by the appellant Murli Manohar Markam for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused/ respondent Nos. 2 to 8 by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) vide impugned order dated 05.07.2025 in Special Sessions Case No. 12/2024, whereby though the accused/ respondents have been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325/149, 307/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the accused/ respondents Dinesh (respondent No.3 and Puran Solanki (respondent No.6) have also been convicted under Section 25(1)(d) and 27 of the Arms Act, but they were sentenced

¶42

4

¶43

only to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 and lesser concurrent terms under the other Sections.

¶44

3. CRA No. 1422 of 2025 has been preferred by the convicts/ appellants against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 12/2024, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :-

¶45

CONVICTION	SENTENCE
U/s 147 of IPC	RI for 1 year and each of the appel payment of fine, month	fine of Rs.1,000/- to lant and in default of additional RI for 1
U/s 148 of IPC	RI for 1 year and each of the appel payment of fine, month	fine of Rs.1,000/- to lant and in default of additional RI for 1
U/s 325 r/w 149 of IPC	RI for 2 years and each of the appel payment of fine, months	fine of Rs.2,000/- to lant and in default of additional RI for 2
U/s 307 r/w 149 of	RI for 5 years and	fine of Rs.5,000/- to
IPC	each of the appel payment of fine, months	lant and in default of additional RI for 5
U/s 3(2)(va) of SC &	RI for 1 year and	fine of Rs.1,000/- to
ST (Prevention of	each of the appel	lant and in default of
Atrocities) Act	payment of fine, month	additional RI for 1
U/s 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act	RI for 1 year and appellant Nos. 2	fine of Rs.1,000/- to and 5 and in default

¶46

5

¶47

		of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month
U/s	27 of the Arms	RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- to
Act		appellant Nos. 2 and 5 and in default
		of payment of fine, additional RI for 3
		months
	with a direction to	run all the sentences concurrently

¶48

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.12.2023 at 21.30 hrs, informant Murali Manohar Markam lodged a complaint at the Dehati Nalisi that he is the Director of Gyan Vatika School, Silyari, on 27.12.2023 at night around 9:30 PM, he was at home, and his son, Kapish Markam, had gone out to take the dog of the house for a ride. He called him on his mobile phone and informed him that Puran Solanki had come in a Hyundai car with his friends, armed with sticks, batons, and rods, in front of Saraswati Shishu Mandir on Tresar Road, and were abusing and quarreling with him over an old rivalry. Therefore, he should come quickly. Upon receiving this information, the informant, along with his brother Santosh Markam and son Chandan Singh, went to the spot where Puran Solanki, Dinesh Solanki, Amit Solanki, Vijay Rathore, Rohit Solanki, and others, acting in unison and declaring that they would kill him today, attacked the informant's son, Kapish, with sticks, batons, rods, and a knife, inflicting fatal injuries on his left hand and both legs. When the informant, his brother Santosh Markam, and his son Chandan Markam tried to intervene, they threatened and assaulted them with sticks, rods,

¶49

6

¶50

and knives with the intent to kill them. The informant sustained injuries to his forehead, near his eye, leg, and ribs, and the informant's brother sustained injuries to both legs and hands, and his son Chandan Markam also sustained injuries. The informant's brother, both sons, and nearby residents witnessed and heard the incident. The informant and the injured were taken to the Dharsiwa Community Health Center for treatment by villagers. After being referred to Mekahra, they were then taken to DKS Hospital, where they are currently receiving treatment. The informant's report has been registered as a zero offense in the Dehati Nalishi. The injured were medically examined and Crime No. 615/2023 was registered at Dharsiwa police station and after complete investigation, the charge sheet was presented before the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.).

¶51

5. When charges were framed against accused Vijay Rathore, Dinesh Solki, Rohit Solanki, Amit Solanki, Puran Solanki, Jhini Bai Solanki, Harilal Rathore and Ratan Solanki under sections 147, 148, 149, 325/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and against accused Dinesh Solanki and Puran Solanki under the said sections along with section 25(1) (a) and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and when read out and explained to them, they denied having committed the crime and

¶52

7

¶53

when they were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they pleaded innocence.

¶54

6. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Narayan Prasad Gupta (PW-01), Dr. S.R. Baghel (PW-02), Murali Manohar Markam (PW-03), Kapish Markam (PW-04), Chandan Singh Markam (PW-05), Subhashini Markam (PW-06), Santosh Markam (PW-07), Annapurna Markam (PW-08) Ayub Saifi (PW-09), S. Tarun Naidu (PW-10), Birbal Sahu (PW-11), Laxmi Narayan Verma (PW-12), Vibhas Tiwari (PW-13), Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Khunte (PW14), Dr. Ramswaroop Markam (PW-15), Deepak Baghel (PW-16), Abid Raza (PW-17) Ram Prakash Sahu (PW-18), Krishna Kumar Yadav (PW-19), Rajendra Kumar Chandrakar (PW-20), Manoj Kumar Patel (PW-21), Dilendra Yadav (PW-22), Aman Kumar (PW23), Jitendra Dahriya (PW-24), Ganesh Ram Shrey (PW-25), Ramnath Khurshyam (PW-26), Baleshwar Lahare (PW-27), Manishanker Chandra (PW-28), Rajendra Dewan (PW-29), Dr. Pranay Srivastava (PW-30), Mahendra Verma (PW-31) and Shivendra Rajput (PW-32), whereas the defence has not presented any evidence in support of its case.

¶55

7. The learned Special Judge, after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 05.07.2025, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner mentioned in the paragraph 03 of this judgment, against which CRA No. 1422 of

¶56

8

¶57

2025 has been preferred calling in question the impugned judgment whereas CRA No. 121 of 2026 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence awarded by the trial Court.

¶58

8. Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant / complainant in CRA No. 121 of 2026 vehemently argued that the sentence awarded to the accused is grossly inadequate considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that two persons were grievously injured namely Murli Manohar Markam and Kapish Markam and one other was injured namely Chandan Markam and the nature of the injuries caused in the vital part of body i.e Head to PW-3 and deadly fractures and wounds were inflicted both upon PW-3 and PW-4. The learned Special Judge erred in awarding only 5 years RI for an offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, despite clear findings of intention to kill. He further argued that the judgment itself records that the accused, with common object, inflicted fatal blows on Kapish Markam with lathis, rods and knives with intention of killing him. Such finding mandates life imprisonment or at least 10 years RI. The learned trial Court failed to distinguish between mere grievous hurt and attempt to murder. The nature, number, and location of injuries, coupled with the use of deadly weapons on a vital part, are déterminative of homicidal intent. It is also submitted that the statements of PW-3 Murli Manohar Markam, PW-4 Kapish Markam, PW-5 Chandan Singh Markam and PW-7 Santosh Markam and statement of

¶59

9

¶60

independent witness Ayyub Saifi (PW-9) as well as evidences exhibited establish that the assault was collective, premeditated, and accompanied by caste abuses, showing hatred-motivated violence. The accused surrounded the victims, attacked simultaneously, and fled only after the victims collapsed. The medical findings as deposed by Dr. SR Baghel (PW-2), Dr.Sanjeev Kumar Khunte (PW-14) and Dr. Pranay Shrivastava (PW-30), of multiple fractures and deep wounds inflicted upon the injured victims confirm the brutality. He also submitted that the learned trial Court correctly held that all accused shared a common object under Section 149 IPC, but failed to proportion the sentence to that joint criminality. It is settled proposition of law that each participant in an unlawful assembly is equally liable for the full consequence of the common object, including attempted murder.

¶61

9. Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for convicts/appellants in CRA No. 1682 of 2024 vehemently argued that the prosecution case, particularly for the purpose of sentencing under Section 307 IPC, heavily relies upon the alleged grievous injuries and fractures sustained by PW-3 Murali Manohar Markam and PW-4 Kapish Markam. However, it is respectfully submitted that no X-ray report or radiological evidence has been exhibited or proved in accordance with law to substantiate the claim of fractures. In the absence of X-ray plates or reports, the alleged fractures remain uncorroborated; the oral testimony of doctors, unsupported by

¶62

10

¶63

radiological evidence, cannot conclusively prove the nature or extent of the injuries as grievous within the meaning of Section 320 IPC; the prosecution version regarding “deadly fractures” is rendered medically doubtful. He further submitted that although Dr.S.R. Baghel (PW-2), Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Khunte (PW-14), and Dr. Pranay Shrivastav (PW-30) have referred to fractures and serious injuries, no X-ray films, reports, or radiologist’s opinion have been brought on record. It is settled law that where fracture is alleged, X-ray evidence is the best and primary evidence, and in its absence, the benefit must go to the accused, especially at the stage of sentencing. He also submitted that though medical witnesses have opined that the injuries sustained by the victims were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, but all injured persons survived, recovered, and were discharged after treatment. This significantly weakens the prosecution’s contention of homicidal intent warranting a higher or enhanced sentence.

¶64

10. Mr. Singh contended that even assuming the prosecution case at its highest, the absence of conclusive medical proof places the case closer to Section 325 IPC rather than Section 307 IPC. The learned Trial Court has already taken a strict view by sustaining conviction under Section 307 IPC. In such circumstances enhancement of sentence is impermissible and a lenient view in sentencing is fully justified. He further contended that while Section 149 IPC fastens vicarious liability, it does not dilute the

¶65

11

¶66

prosecution’s burden to prove the nature and gravity of injuries. When the foundational medical evidence itself is deficient, the appellants cannot be subjected to prolonged incarceration on presumptions or exaggerations. He also contended that the appellants Vijay, Dinesh, Rohit and Amit are in jail since 28.12.2023, appellant Puran Solanki is in jail since 29.12.2023, appellant Hari Rathore is in jail since 19.03.2024 and appellant Ratan Solanki is in jail since 19.09.2024 as such, have already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence during trial and pendency of the appeal. They have faced the trauma of criminal prosecution for a prolonged period, therefore, it is prayed to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants to the period already undergone, particularly in view of the absence of X-ray reports and inconclusive proof of grievous injuries.

¶67

11. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submitted that looking to the seriousness of crime, the appellants are not at all entitled for any sympathy by this Court, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶68

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶69

13. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is grossly inadequate, considering the brutality of assault, use of deadly weapons,

¶70

12

¶71

common object of the accused, and the nature of injuries suffered by the victims. The medical evidence on record, in fact, shows that PW-2 Dr. S.R. Baghel, PW-14 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Khunte, and PW-30 Dr. Pranay Srivastava have opined that the injuries sustained by PW-3 Murali Manohar Markam and PW-4 Kapish Markam were grievous in nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, the conviction under Section 307 IPC is supported by the medical evidence. However, while considering enhancement of sentence, this Court must keep in view the overall scheme of sentencing, the mitigating circumstances, and established principles of criminal jurisprudence.

¶72

14. It is noteworthy that no X-ray reports or radiological evidence have been produced on record in support of the alleged fractures, although oral medical evidence has been led. While absence of X-ray evidence does not necessarily vitiate conviction, it is a relevant factor in assessing the severity of injuries for the purpose of sentence enhancement.

¶73

15. It is well settled that enhancement of sentence is not automatic merely because a higher punishment is permissible in law. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, observed that the extent of sentence must be guided by the nature of the offence, circumstances of the case, and other mitigating factors, and that interference in sentencing is warranted only where there is perversity or irrationality.

¶74

13

¶75

16. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 , the Supreme Court expounded that sentencing requires a principled approach, balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and that the Court should avoid unduly harsh sentences where such balance is not warranted by the facts.

¶76

17. In view of the above, and having regard to the fact that the victims survived the incident; the absence of X-ray reports corroborating the extent of fractures; the sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment already imposed; and no criminal antecedents of the appellants being proved, this Court finds no compelling reason to enhance the substantive sentence.

¶77

18. Accordingly, CRA No. 121 of 2026 filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of sentence is dismissed .

¶78

19. So far the appeal preferred by the accused is concerned, this Court has given anxious consideration to the nature of the offence, medical evidence, and the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶79

20. As noted, the medical witnesses have opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and therefore, conviction under Section 307 IPC is maintained.

¶80

21. At the same time, sentencing is not a mechanical exercise; instead, it is a matter of judicial discretion rooted in both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court, in

¶81

14

¶82

Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2020) 5 SCC 719, upheld reduction of sentence even in cases involving severe injuries, observing that the purpose of sentencing is not merely retribution but also reformation and social rehabilitation of the offender, provided the offence does not manifest extreme depravity.

¶83

22. In the present case, the following mitigating factors deserve consideration:

¶84

➢ the incident arose out of prior rivalry and a sudden quarrel without premeditation;

¶85

➢ the victims, though grievously injured, survived;

¶86

➢ no X-ray or radiological evidence has been produced to corroborate the fractures;

¶87

➢ the appellants Vijay, Dinesh, Rohit and Amit are in jail since 28.12.2023, appellant Puran Solanki is in jail since 29.12.2023, appellant Hari Rathore is in jail since 19.03.2024 and appellant Ratan Solanki is in jail since 19.09.2024 as such, they have already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence during trial and pendency of the appeal. They have faced the trauma of criminal prosecution for a prolonged period.

¶88

23. In view of the above, and in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction to temper justice with mercy, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellants for offence under Section under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325/149, 307/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and upon appellants Dinesh and Puran Solanki for offences under Section 25(1)(d) and 27 of the Arms Act to the period already undergone by them.

¶89

15

¶90

24. In view of the foregoing discussion CRA No. 1422 of 2025 is partly allowed , and while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under aforesaid Sections, the substantive sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶91

25. The appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.

¶92

26. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶93

Sd/Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶94

Chandra

Murli Manohar Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murli Manohar Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Chaitali Das Vs B. K. Das

Amanraj Diwakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Beerdhan Dora

Moti Lal Jain Vs Steel Authority of India

Kismatunnisha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh