Khumsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8403 MP

                                         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                   1                                                        CRA No.1166/2020

                                                          CRA No.1166/2020
                                   Indore, Dated : 7.12.2021
                                         Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the
                                   appellant.

                                         Ms. Sofia Khan, learned PL for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.28095/2021, which is an application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant Khum Singh. The appellant has been convicted under Section 304 (Part-2) of IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record. The deceased died due to septicemia and not by the injury inflicted by the appellant, hence conviction of the appellant is bad in law. The injuries sustained by the deceased were simple in nature, hence the appellant at the most can be convicted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. Appellant is in custody for more than 3 years and there is no likelihood that instant appeal would come for hearing. Hence he prays for bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence till the final hearing of the appeal.

Per contra, learned PL for the respondent/State opposes the application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection by submitting that by the cogent and reliable evidence the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant in the alleged offence. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appellant does not deserve for bail and suspension of jail sentence.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of B.N. Kavatakar and another Vs. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (1) SCC 304], wherein it has been held as under:-

"9. The next question that comes up for our consideration is what is the nature of the offence that the appellants have committed. The Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has opined that the death was as a result of septicaemia secondary to injuries and peritonitis. As Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2021.12.08 10:47:39 PST HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

we have indicated above, the deceased died after five days of the occurrence in the hospital. On an overall scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the opinion of the Medical Officer, we are of the view that the offence would be one punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC."

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is found that there is no material contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence. Although deceased has died due to septicemia but the septicemia was occurred due to the injuries inflicted by the appellant. As per the witnesses, the appellant gave blow of axe upon the vital parts of the deceased repeatedly.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence of appellant.

Accordingly IA No.28095/2021 is dismissed.

(Anil Verma) Judge trilok/-

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2021.12.08 10:47:39 PST