Sudden Fight During Ganesh Chaturthi Procession: Madhya Pradesh High Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently altered a conviction for murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in a case where a man died after being struck by a stone during a sudden altercation amid a Ganesh Chaturthi procession in Bhopal. The division bench held that the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment without any premeditation and therefore fell within the fourth exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Vinod Thakur challenging the judgment of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. The trial court had convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000.

Appearing for the appellant, advocate Laxmi Chandra Chourasiya argued that the incident was the result of a sudden quarrel during a festive procession and there was no intention to cause death. It was submitted that, at best, the case reflected knowledge of possible consequences but not the intention required to sustain a conviction for murder. On the other hand, government advocate Kamal Singh Baghel represented the State of Madhya Pradesh.

According to the prosecution story, complainant Amita Chandel and several family members had gathered near Milan Hotel in Bhopal late at night on September 28, 2023 to watch a Ganesh Chaturthi procession. Around 2 a.m., some persons who were dancing as part of a Jhanki allegedly began throwing stones at each other. During this commotion, one of them, identified as the appellant Vinod Thakur, came and sat on the footpath between the complainant’s daughter and niece. When the complainant’s brother Amit objected, the appellant allegedly abused him and threw a stone which struck Amit on the head, causing him to collapse.

Amit later succumbed to the injuries, and the trial court convicted the appellant for murder. However, the High Court carefully examined the evidence on record, including the testimony of the complainant and the medical findings. The court noted that Amita Chandel admitted in her testimony that the incident took place suddenly during the procession and that she had no prior acquaintance with the accused. She also acknowledged that several persons present at the spot were throwing stones at each other and that the dispute appeared to involve multiple individuals.

The bench also referred to the post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Kelu Girwal, which recorded a lacerated wound on the right side of the head and other abrasions on the body. The cause of death was attributed to the head injury leading to heart failure. However, the doctor did not conclusively state whether the injuries were caused by a bamboo stick or by stone-throwing during the commotion.

Taking these aspects into account, the court observed that the evidence indicated a spontaneous altercation rather than a planned attack. The judges noted that the accused had no prior enmity with the victim and that the incident occurred in the midst of a chaotic situation during the procession.

The High court observed that “it is an incident which took place at the spur of the moment, there being no premeditation,” and therefore the act of the appellant would fall within the fourth exception to Section 300 of the IPC.

The bench also relied on precedents of the Supreme Court, including Jugut Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) and Kariman v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024), which explain the circumstances in which a homicide committed during a sudden fight without premeditation may not amount to murder.

In view of these findings, the High court held that the conviction deserved to be modified. Accordingly, it altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder where death is caused with knowledge but without intention.

Consequently, the sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000, with a default stipulation of six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The criminal appeal was partly allowed and disposed of in these terms.

Case title: Vinod Thakur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: March 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen