Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narmada Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 CRA.No.3135/2020
HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE
D.B : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUJOY PAUL & HON'BLE JUSTICE
SHRI SHAILENDRA SHUKLA
Indore dated :- 24.2.2021
CRA No.3135/2020
(NARMADA BAI & ORS. V/s. STATE OF M.P.)
Shri Gautam Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri S.R. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent/State.
Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for objector.
Reply has been filed.
Heard on I.A.No.7283/2020, an application filed under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of the appellant
No.1 (Narmada bai) and appellant No.4 (Mukesh). They have been
convicted by ASJ, Dewas in ST.No.216/2018, vide judgment dated
17.3.2020 and has been sentenced them to undergo as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Section & Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment
Act Amount in lieu of fine
147 of IPC 1 year RI Rs.1000/- 3 Months RI
307/149 of 10 years RI Rs.5000/- 3 Months RI
IPC
324/149 of 1 year RI Rs.1000/- 3 Months RI
IPC
302/149 of Life Rs.10,000 3 Months RI
IPC Imprisonment /-
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the case of the
appellant No.1 (Narmada Bai) is akin to that of co-accused Shilpa who has
been given the benefit of suspension of sentence on 14.9.2020. Regarding
the appellant No.4 it has been submitted that the evidence available on
record does not show that the appellant shared the common object of
unlawful assembly.
The prosecution in short was that the appellant Mukesh Bhoi used to
run a Kirana shop and the complainant Dayaram had opened up his own
Kirana shop later on, which adversely affected the business of Mukesh. On
2.3.2018, Mukesh along with co-accused Sunny, Tushar and Vishal
assaulted Dayaram in front of his house. Hari Verma (PW3) came to
intervene, but he was stabbed by co-accused Sunny and the appellant
Mukesh along with others assaulted Hari Verma with fist and kicks. When
the brother of Hari Verma namely Lalu (the deceased) came to save his
brother, co-accused Sunny again stabbed him and he was also assaulted by
appellant and others. The accusation against Narmada Bai was that she and
co-accused Shilpa had caught hold the hands of the deceased and Sunny
inflicted fatal knife blows on him.
This Court in its order dated 14.9.2020, while considering the
suspension application of co-accused Shilpa has considered the police
statements of the witnesses in which it has been mentioned that Shilpa and
the present appellant Narmada Bai have arrived at the spot and Shilpa was
in fact trying to snatch the knife from the hands of accused Sunny but was
injured in the process. In the aforesaid statements Exhibits D/7 and D/6,
there is no mention of appellant Narmada Bai holding the hand of the
deceased. This is major contradiction between Court statement and police
statement. The case of the appellant Narmada Bai is not different from that
of Shilpa and therefore, suspension application filed on behalf of appellant
No.1 (Narmada Bai) is being allowed. Without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, it is directed that upon appellant No.1 (Narmada Bai)
depositing the fine amount (if not already paid) and on furnishing a
personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the substantive jail sentence of
the appellant No.1 (Narmada Bai) shall remain suspended till the final
disposal of this appeal and she shall be released on bail, for her regular
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 29.4.2021 and all other
subsequent dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by the Office.
As far as appellant No.4 (Mukesh S/o. Ganeshram Bhoi) is
concerned, learned counsel submits that as per prosecution story Sunny had
taken out knife and inflicted injuries on the deceased and the appellant
Mukesh did not have knowledge beforehand and therefore, he cannot be
considered to have share the common object of assembly.
Learned counsel has bolster his submissions with the help of
judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Daya Kishan vs.
State of Haryana, 2010 (5) SCC 81, Kuldip Yadav & Ors. vs. State of
Bihar, 2011 (5) SCC 324 and State of Punjab vs. Sanjiv Kumar, 2007 (9)
SCC 791.
The aforesaid submissions were considered.
A perusal of the record shows that it was the appellant (Mukesh)
who was nursing a grudge against Dayaram and was involved in assaulting
him. The evidence of Hari Verma (PW3) was considered who has stated
that when he went to save Dayaram, Sunny stabbed him with a knife and
the appellant Mukesh and another co-accused also assaulted him and later
on when the deceased came to intervene, he was also assaulted by Mukesh
and others and Sunny stabbed him. Injured Lalu succumbed to his injuries.
Thus, it is apparent that appellant Mukesh had already seen Sunny
possessing a knife and inflicting a knife blow on Hari Verma and he was
also involved in assaulting Hari. These accused repeated the same act when
deceased came to intervene. However, this time the knife blow on Lalu
turned to be fatal. Thus, prima facie it appears that not only the appellant
shared the common object of the unlawful assembly in furtherance of
which Lalu was stabbed to death but also shared the common intention
with main accused Sunny.
After due consideration, no case is made out for suspension of jail
sentence to appellant No.4 (Mukesh). His application for suspension of jail
sentence stands rejected.
List for final hearing in due course.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-
Digitally signed by
Shailesh Sukhdev
Date: 2021.02.26 18:13:24
+05'30'
