Jadu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1241 MP

    THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE
                     BENCH

                         CRA No.6297/2020
                     Jadu Singh vs. State of M.P.


Indore, dated :05.04.2021
     Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Amit Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the non-applicant
- State.
Per: Shailendra Shukla J:-
      Submissions were made on I.A. No.1142/2021 which is an
application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of
sentence.
      The appellant Jadu Singh has been convicted under Section
302/34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations.
      As per prosecution story, deceased Hemu @ Hemsingh was
stabbed with a knife by co-accused Ajab Singh whereas the present
appellant and other co-accused persons had caught hold of the
deceased. The FIR has been lodged by eye-witness Lakhan Singh,
relative of the deceased. Other eye-witnesses are Suner PW/2,
Dharmendra PW/3 and Ashok PW/4.
      Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn Court's attention to
the inconsistencies which have occurred in the statements of Lakhan
Singh PW/5. He has pointed out to the examination-in-chief of
Lakhan Singh who states that he saw the present appellant Jadu Singh
and other three co-accused persons quarreling with Heminsgh
(deceased) then this witness ran to call the brothers of the deceased
namely Sohan and Ashok and when they came back to the spot, he
saw that Hemsingh was being assaulted by Ajab Singh and other co-
accused persons and then Ajab Singh stabbed the deceased before this
witness and thereafter all the accused persons including the appellant
fled away from the spot.
       Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this witnesses
has not named Jadu Singh as the one who had caught hold the
deceased as per the prosecution story. He has further drawn Court's
attention to para no.55 of the deposition of this witness in which he
has stated that there was no quarrel between the deceased and the
accused persons and there had never been any dispute of the accused
persons with Hemsingh. He further admits that liquor smell was
emanating from the mouth of Hemsingh. Learned counsel for the
appellant has also drawn Court's attention to other paragraphs i.e.
from para no.49 to 54. This witness in para no.52, has stated that he
does not know as to what was written in the FIR (Ex.P/11) and he also
further admits in para no.53 that he does not know as to what written
in all other documents in which he has appended his thumb
impression.
      Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn Court's
attention to some discrepancies which have occurred in the statements
of other witnesses. He submits that the report was not lodged
immediately after the incident but was lodged on the next day. On
these grounds suspension of jail sentence has been sought.
      Learned counsel for the State was also heard. He has invited
Court's attention to para nos.13, 16 and 22 of the judgment
pronounced by the trial Court and has stated that conviction of
appellant is based on appropriate appreciation of the evidence.
      Submissions were heard and record was perused.
      There are three eye-witnesses namely Suner PW/2, Dharmendra
PW/3 and Ashok PW/4, who have stated that they had seen Jadu
Singh (appellant) alongwith other two co-accused persons having
caught hold of the deceased and Ajab Singh inflicting knife injuries to
the deceased. Although in the police statements all these witnesses i.e.
Ex.D/1, D/2 and D/3, it has not specifically been mentioned that they
had seen Ajab Singh inflicting knife injuries to the deceased but there
are no discrepancies in the Court statements and police statements
     regarding the fact that the present appellant alongwith other co-
    accused persons had been caught hold of the deceased and they had
    seen Ajab Singh holding a knife in his hand. Blood has been found on
    the knife recovered from Ajab Singh as per the FSL report (Ex.P/24).
    The incident had occurred at 11:00 PM on 31.05.2015 and the report
    has been lodged barely four hours later at 3.25 AM on 01.06.2015.
           After duly considering the statements, conviction of appellant
    under Section 302 of IPC with the aid of Section 34 of IPC, prima
    facie, appears to be just conclusion warranting no interference by way
    of suspension of sentence.
           The application stands rejected.
           Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.




                  (Sujoy Paul)                  (Shailendra Shukla)
                         Judge                                Judge

    amit
AMIT KUMAR
2021.04.06

17:58:45 +05'30'