Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1307 MP

                                       1
   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.642 OF 2016
              (Ravi Gujar vs State of Madhya Pradesh)


Indore, Dated 06.04.2021
      Mr. Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Mr.   Amit      Singh   Sisodiya,       learned    counsel    for     the
respondent/State.
      Arguments heard.
                                 ORDER

Heard on IA No.1888/2021 which is an application for urgent hearing of the case. Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Accordingly, IA No.1888/2021 stands disposed of.

Also heard on IA No.1887/2021 which is third application under Section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail of appellant-Ravi Gujar S/o Jagdish Chand Gujar who has been convicted by First Additional Sessions Judge, Paschim Nimad, Mandleshwar, in Session Trial No.71/2012 vide judgment dated 13.04.2016 and sentenced him as under:-

               Conviction                           Sentence
     Section & Act     Imprisonment        Fine Amount   Imprisonment
                                                          in lieu of fine
      302/34 of IPC    Rigorous Life        Rs.5,000/-    02 Months RI
                       Imprisonment
      324/34 of IPC     03 years RI         Rs.3,000/-    02 Months RI
      324/34 of IPC     03 years RI         Rs.3,000/-    02 Months RI
       324 of IPC       03 years RI         Rs.3,000/-    02 Months RI
      323/34 of IPC     01 year RI          Rs.1,000/-    02 Months RI

The first application for suspension was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.09.2017 and the second application was dismissed

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.642 OF 2016 (Ravi Gujar vs State of Madhya Pradesh)

as withdrawn on 22.04.2019 on medical grounds.

The prosecution story in short was that there was a dispute between the complainant party and the appellant pertaining to encroachment of agricultural field of complainant party by appellant and other co-accused persons. On the date of incident i.e. on 27.09.2011, such altercation had taken place between complainant Mansingh, appellant and other co-accused persons whereby the complainant was assaulted for raising such objections. When Mansingh narrated the incident to his relatives, his family members came to the spot. However the appellant Ravi Gujar and other co- accused persons got down from their car and co-accused Shriram wielding a country made pistol fired at Ramratan who later on succumbed to his injuries. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence regarding prior meeting of minds and that there was no common intention involved with the co-accused who had fired from his gun resulting in death of deceased Ramratan. The Court's attention was drawn to para 63 of the judgment by learned counsel for the appellant and has further drawn the attention towards the citation of Apex Court in the case of Pandurang and Others vs State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216 in which it has been laid down that common intention under Section 34 of IPC presupposes prior concert. In Jai Bhagwan and Others vs State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 1083 and State of Rajasthan vs Manoj Kumar 2014 CRLJ 2420 have also been referred to in which it has been held that if the main accused has exceeded the right of private defence then constructive liability

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.642 OF 2016 (Ravi Gujar vs State of Madhya Pradesh)

envisaged under Section 34 of IPC is not attracted. On these grounds, suspension has been sought.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has invited the Court's attention to para 56 of the impugned judgment in which these submissions have been taken into account in which the Presiding Officer citing a judgment, has clarified that the common intention can be formed on the spur of a moment.

Considered.

It appears that an altercation had already ensued between the complainant party and appellant and other co-accused persons on account of accused driving their sand laden vehicles through the agricultural field of complainant party. The complainant Mansingh had been assaulted in the aforesaid incident and soon thereafter when Mansingh called out his relatives, the present incident had occured involving a shoot out by co-accused Shriram resulting in death of Ramratan, son of complainant Mansingh. Even as Ramratan was strucked by bullet, the appellant assaulted Suraj with sharp edged weapon. This displays sharing of common intention by the appellant with the main accused which as per settled law, could be formed in spur of a moment. The right of private defence in such a case when the initial assault was at the behest of appellant and other co-accused persons would not be available in the present case, especially, looking to the fact that despite being the tresspassers on the agricultural field, they had resorted to assaulting, when opposed.

After duly considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence to appellant. Accordingly, IA No.1887/2021 stands rejected.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.642 OF 2016 (Ravi Gujar vs State of Madhya Pradesh)

Record has been received.

Be listed for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per Rules.

                  (SUJOY PAUL)                             (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
                    JUDGE                                        JUDGE
    Arun/-

Digitally signed by ARUN
NAIR
Date: 2021.04.07 17:15:42
+05'30'