Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
1
CRA-2157-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No.2157/2013
(Ravi Rajak and another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Jabalpur, Dated 18-08-2021.
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Per Virender Singh, J. :-
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Sanjeev
Mishra, for the appellants.
Shri Ritwik Parashar, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the Objector.
I.A. No.2157/2020 is taken up.
2. This is the third application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence of appellant No.1/applicant Ravi Rajak who
has been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- with
default stipulation.
3. The first application (I.A. No.12816/2018) was dismissed in
default on 15.11.2018 whereas the second application (I.A.
No.3444/2019) was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.05.2019.
4. The allegation as found proved against the applicant is that along
with co-accused Sunil @ Sonu Rajak, the applicant Ravi Rajak
inflicted knife blows on the neck and other parts of the body of Deepak
Tiwari who succumbed to the injuries thus sustained.
5. The prime ground taken by the appellant No.1/applicant for
pressing the suspension is that the applicant acted in his self defence.
To substantiate his case, the ld. counsel for the applicant placed
reliance on the decision in V.D. Jhingan vs State of Uttar Pradesh
AIR 1966 SC 1762. The other grounds taken are that the co-accused
Sunil @ Sonu Rajak has been granted suspension vide order dated
CRA-2157-2013
06.08.2015 and the present applicant is in custody since 10.02.2012
and has served out about 9 years and 6 months' actual period of
incarceration. The appeal is likely to take time to be heard finally.
Therefore, the custodial sentence of the applicant be suspended.
6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State as well
as learned counsel for the Objector vehemently opposed the
application.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
8. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, three witnesses
were examined in the trial Court as PW1 to PW3 namely Sachin Nigam
@ Sacchu, Abdul Javed and Ateek Khan as eyewitnesses to the alleged
occurrence and they have stated about the occurrence particularly in
order to connect the appellant No.1 with the nexus of crime. Further,
Dr. Pramod Dwivedi (PW5), who performed the postmortem of the
deceased, in his evidence, deposed that he had noticed following
injuries :
(1) Incised wound 3 inch x 3 inch x ½ inch on right upper
shin
(2) Penetrating wound 1 inch x ½ inch x 2 inch deep on
right thigh, lateral aspect
(3) Penetrating wound 1½ x ¾ inch x penetrating the
peritoneum, small intestine out, right upper abdomen.
(4) Penetrating wound 1½ inch x ¾ inch x penetrating the
peritoneum, right upper flank, 5 inch above the iliac
tuberosity
(5) Penetrating wound 2 inch x ¾ inch x penetrating the
peritoneum on the right side abdomen.
(6) Penetrating wound 1½ inch x ¾ inch x penetrating the
peritoneum the level of thorax abdomen junction
(7) Penetrating wound 2 inch x 1 inch x penetrating the
peritoneum on right side of abdomen near mid-line,
obliquely placed
(8) Penetrating wound 1½ inch x ¾ inch x penetrating the
peritoneum, omentum coming out, near mid-line on the left
side of abdomen
CRA-2157-2013
(9) Penetrating wound 1½ inch x ¾ inch x bone deep in
right lower chest
(10) Penetrating wound 1 inch x ½ inch x ½ inch in right
side scrotum
(11) Penetrating wound 5 inch x 2 inch x 2 inch on right
hip
(12) Penetrating wound 2 inch x 2½ inch x 2½ inch on
right hip
(13) Incised wound 1½ inch x ½ inch x penetrating the
pleura left lower back
(14) Multiple incised wound 5 in number in right lower
gluteal region of about 1 inch x ½ inch x ½ inch
(15) Incised wound 4 inch x 2 inch x bone deep cutting
right side of parietal bone two in number.
(16) Incised wound 1 inch x 3 inch x cutting the trachea,
cervical carotid all vein and muscle of the neck
(17) Incised wound 2 inch x 1 inch x ½ inch in dorsum of
left hand.
(18) Incised wound 3 inch x ½ inch x 2 inch on right leg
distal aspect.
(19) Incised wound 2 inch x ½ inch x 1½ inch on right
thigh medial aspect
(20) Incised wound 2½ inch x ½ inch x 1½ inch on right
medial aspect of thigh
(21) Incised wound 2 inch x ¾ inch x bone deep on left
lower chest
9. Thus, the post mortem report discloses that there are as many as
21 injuries on the person of the deceased and they are caused by sharp,
cutting and penetrating object and injury no.15 is sufficient to cause
instant death.
10. So far as the parity is concerned, after perusing the order
granting suspension to co-accused Sunil @ Sonu Rajak on 06.08.2015,
we find that suspension was granted on the ground that he only caught
hold of the deceased and exhorted, thereafter, present applicant
inflicted repeated blows with knife on the person of the deceased. He is
not attributed to have inflicted the injuries by knife.
CRA-2157-2013
11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court
observes that present applicant is the main accused who inflicted
repeated knife blows on the neck and other vital parts of the body of
Deepak Tiwari who was taken to the hospital where he was declared
dead by the Doctor. Therefore, the case of the present applicant stands
on different footing than that of co-accused Sunil. Against the
applicant, there are specific allegations in the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1)
itself that he dealt knife blows on the person of the deceased which is
corroborated with the medical evidence of Doctor (PW5). The role of
the applicant is clearly distinguishable from co-accused Sunil @ Sonu
Rajak, hence, rule of parity would not apply.
12. As regards the plea of self defence, under Section 105 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof is on the accused, who
sets up the plea of self-defence, and, in the absence of proof, it is not
possible for the Court to presume the truth of such plea. Learned trial
Court has considered this aspect in detail in paragraphs 63, 64 & 65 of
the impugned judgment and has held that the plea of self-defence is not
made out. That apart, the judgment relied on by the counsel for the
applicant in the case of V.D. Jhingan (supra) is of no avail to the
applicant being distinguishable on facts.
13. Having regard to the nature of allegations found proved against
the appellant No.1, availability of eye-witnesses, gravity of offence and
also considering the nature, number and situs of the injuries sustained
by the deceased, we are of the opinion that no case for suspension of
sentence is made out. Therefore, I.A. No.2157/2020 is rejected.
(Prakash Shrivastava) (Virender Singh)
JUDGE JUDGE
vinod
Digitally signed by
VINOD VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2021.08.25
16:31:32 +05'30'
