Prahlad Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2919 MP

                                 1
                                                        CRA No.1177/2021

        High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
                    Bench at Indore
            Criminal Appeal No.1177/2021
Indore, Dated 02.07.2021
      Hearing through Video Conferencing.

      Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri

Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for appellant No.2 Santosh s/o

Prahlad Singh Raghuwanshi and appellant No.3 Dinesh s/o Bhanwar

Singh Rathuwanshi.

      Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Deputy Advocate General for

the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh.

Shri Vaibhav Asawa, learned counsel for objector Mangilal s/o

Ramchandra Raghuwanshi.

Heard on IA No.12827/2021, first application under Section

389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of

jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.2

Santosh s/o Prahlad Singh Raghuwanshi and appellant No.3 Dinesh

s/o Bhanwar Singh Rathuwanshi; and also IA No.14564/2021, an

application regarding objection to the application for suspension of

sentence (IA No.12827/2021) filed by objector Mangilal s/o

Ramchandra Raghuwanshi (brother of the deceased).

The present appellants have been convicted vide judgment

dated 16.02.2021 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Barwaha,

District Khargone (MP) in Sessions Trial No.100201/2011 for the

CRA No.1177/2021

offfences punishable under Sections 302/201 and 201 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along

with fine of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- with default clause to further

undergo 6 months and 3 months rigorous imprisonment respectively.

Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants at the outset submits that this Court was kind enough in

suspending the remaining jail sentence of appellant No.1 Prahlad

Singh s/o Ratan Singh Raghuwanshi by passing a detailed order

dated 31.05.2021. The present appellants are similarly situated qua

Prahlad Singh. By applying the principles of parity, they also

deserve similar treatment.

Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the

respondent / State and counsel for the objector have fairly submitted

that they are indeed similarly situated, however, learned counsel for

the objector submits that the objector has an apprehension that if

both of them are released on bail, they may misuse the liberty and

the complainant (s) will be at danger.

This Court on 31.05.2021 recorded, as under: -

"Heard on I.A. No.6313/2021, which is first application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.1 - Prahlad Singh S/o Ratan Singh Raghuvanshi.

Appellant No.1 has been convicted vide judgment dated 16.02.2021 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Barwaha, District - Khargoe in Sessions Trial No.100201/2011 for the offfences punishable under Sections 302/201 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

CRA No.1177/2021

undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. With default clause to further undergo 6 months and 3 months rigorous imprisonment respectively.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution story, the incident had taken place on 07.11.2010. The deceased - Madan Singh was allegedly beaten by appellant No.1 and other co-accused persons. The brother of deceased, Mangilal (P.W-1) lodged a missing person report (Ex-D/2) on 16.12.2010 almost after 1½ month from the date of incident. Thereafter no F.I.R. was lodged. For the first time his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded after about 6 months from the date of incident. In this statement, for the first time he took the name of accused persons, whereas he took nobody's name in the missing report (Ex-D/2).

By taking this Court to the impugned judgment, it is argued that there are two prosecution witnesses P.W-10 and 16. P.W- 10 in his cross-examination in the first breathe stated that in Ex-D/2 his signatures are very much there and in the second breathe took a somersault by saying that his signature does not find place.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that this has been done as an afterthought and in order to wriggle out of his own missing report wherein he did not take anybody's name who allegedly assaulted the deceased. In order to improve before the Court, he took dramatically opposite stand about Ex-D/2 which is not trustworthy. In view of his shaky stand during his cross-examination, this witness was not at all trustworthy.

Criticizing the statement of another eye-witness P.W-16, it is urged that in the examination-in-chief, he stated that he wanted to visit the land of P.W-10, whereas in the cross- examination, he fairly admitted that he went there to see the land of one Satyanarayan. Thus, statement of this witness is also not trustworthy because the incident has not taken place in the agricultural field of Satyanarayan. This witness also deposed his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. after 6 ½ months.

The statement of Mangilal is also criticized by contending that he categorically deposed that more than 10 lathi blows were given by the accused persons on the head of the deceased, whereas postmortem report shows only one injury. The injuries described by Mangilal does not match with the postmortem report. The reason of death is also not a lathi blow.

Considering this aspect, it is submitted that appellant No.1 has been falsely arraigned and since there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future because of the pandemic, appellant's remaining sentence may be suspended.

CRA No.1177/2021

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State opposed the application.

We have heard the parties at length and perused the record. Considering the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant regarding delay in recording the statements of P.W- 6 and 10, the somersault taken by P.W-10 regarding Ex-D/2 coupled with the fact that injuries allegedly caused by appellants prima facie do not match with postmortem report, we find that a strong prima facie case is made out for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant No.1. Accordingly, I.A. No.6313/2021 is allowed. The execution of jail sentence of appellant No.1 is hereby suspended and it is ordered that the appellant No.1 be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the Trial Court, Barwaha, District - Khargone on 20.12.2021 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial Court, Barwaha District - Khargone in this regard during the pendency of this appeal."

As the stand of parties clearly shows that it was not disputed

before us, that appellants No.2 and 3 are similarly situated. Thus,

factors on the strength of which the sentence was suspended in

favour of appellant No.1, are very much available for appellants

No.2 and 3. Nothing is pointed out to put the present appellants to a

comparative disadvantageous position.

So far as the apprehension of the learned counsel for the

objector is concerned, suffice it to say that in the event the appellants

misuse their liberty, the objector will not be remedy-less. He can

take recourse of law, which grievance will be taken care of by the

Authorities / Court of competent jurisdiction.

On principle of parity, these appellants deserve the benefit of

CRA No.1177/2021

suspension of their jail sentence.

Accordingly, IA No.12827/2021 is allowed. The execution of

jail sentence of appellants No.2 and 3 is hereby suspended and it is

ordered that the present appellants be released on bail upon each of

them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to

the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear

before the Trial Court, Barwaha, District Khargone (MP) on

20.12.2021 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial

Court, Barwaha District Khargone (MP) in this regard during the

pendency of this appeal.

Consequently, IA No.14564/2021 stands disposed of.

C. c. as per rules.

                              (Sujoy Paul)                       (Subodh Abhyankar)
                                 Judge                                Judge
rcp




RAMESH CHANDRA PITHWE
2021.07.02 16:50:49 +05'30'