Rajesh Singh Dhurvey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8126 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.8311/2018 [Rajesh Singh Dhurvey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh] Jabalpur, dated : 02.12.2021.

Shri Sauman Mukherjee, counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on admission.

Appeal appears to be arguable, therefore, admited for hearing.

Also heard on I.A.No.18772/2018/2018 which is an application under Section 389 (1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence of the appellant.

2. By way of present appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.06.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.24/2018 by the Second Additional Session Judge, Anuppur, District- Anuppur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

      Conviction                             Sentence
304     (Part-II)   of R.I. for 10 years Fine           Default- R.I. for
IPC                                       Rs.10,000/-   3 months.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is nothing to show that any grievous injury was caused to the deceased. Dr. D.R. Singh (PW-7) has stated that he stitched the wound but this fact is not mentioned in his report Ex. P/9. He has further admitted that there were no sufficient arrangements in his hospital, therefore, he referred the deceased to the District Hospital Annupur for further treatment but his relatives did not take him to the District Hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this makes it clear that the death was due to negligence of relatives of the deceased and not due to the injuries allegedly caused by the appellant. Similarly there is no mention in any of the documents prepared that the injury of the deceased was grievous

in nature.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further referred to the statement of Santubai (PW-3) and Kalawati Gond (PW-4) and submitted that they have admitted that they have not seen the incident. It is further admitted by them that at the time of the incident both the deceased and the accused were intoxicated. Kalawati (PW-4) has admitted in paragraph-1 of her cross-examination that the deceased sustained injuries by hitting the door frame and that the applicant had not caused him any injury. In paragraph-8, she has admitted that in the hospital, doctor had advised them to take the deceased to some specialist to save his life. If he would have been taken to some expert doctor, his life could have been saved. Learned counsel argued that the seizure was made after 11 days of the incident. The log used in the incident is 27 cm diameter and it was not possible for anyone to pick it up and inflict it on the head, therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful but the appeal would take time and incarceration of the appellant would not achieve ends of justice, therefore, his sentence be suspended.

5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer. He referred to statement of the witnesses as well as of the doctors and submitted that the death of the deceased was the result of the injury caused by the appellant and there is sufficient evidence to establish this fact. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellant. There is no scope in the appeal, therefore, the application be dismissed.

6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the evidence.

7. Kalawati (PW-4), whose statement has been relied upon by the appellant is his wife. She has been declared hostile. Therefore, her admission has no significance. Further in her examination-in-chief, she

has narrated the entire incident and almost similar is the statement of Santubai (PW-3). She has also stated on oath regarding presence of both the appellant and the deceased and the dispute arisen between both of them. These facts have not been challenged by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has not referred to the statement of Uttarabai (PW-5), who has clearly depicted before the trial Court regarding the incident and the act of the appellant and her statement is supported by the other evidence, particularly the medical evidence, available on record. Keeping in view the entire evidence available against the appellant on record in totality and without discussing them in details, in the opinion of this Court, no case for suspension of sentence is made out. Therefore, the application is dismissed.

List the case for final hearing in due course.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE RC

Digitally signed by MRS RASHMI CHIKANE PASWAN Date: 2021.12.04 13:52:42 +05'30'