Ramji Burman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3365 MP

                                   1                             CRA-2828-2020
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   CRA-2828-2020
            (RAMJI BURMAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

5
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-07-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Shyam Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Ms. Swati Aseem George, learned PL for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri K.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Heard on I.A. No.10423/2021, which is an application filed on behalf

of appellant by Shri Shyam Vishwakarma, Advocate for change of counsel. Alongwith the application he has filed the affidavit of Santosh Barman, father of appellant.

On due consideration, this application is allowed. Let name of Shri Shyam Vishwakarma, Advocate be reflected in the cause list as counsel for appellant.

I.A. No.10423/2021 is disposed of.

Appeal is already admitted for hearing on 04.09.2020. Als o heard on I.A. No.14038/2020, which is first application for

suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.3000/- and Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- respectively. Default stipulations have also been imposed by the trial Court.

A s per prosecution case, complainant-Ravi Khangar has lodged the complaint against the present appellant and other co-accused persons stating therein that enmity was going on between the co-accused Santosh Barman and complainant family. On 07.06.2017, at about 07:30 pm, when the complainant was standing in his house, co-accused Santosh abused him. When the complainant objected to do so, co-accused-Santosh assaulted him 2 CRA-2828-2020 with kick and fists. At that time, present appellant and co-accused-Prem came there armed with iron pipe and lathi respectively and inflicted injuries to the complainant. On shriek of complainant, his brother-Shukhdev and sister-in- law(bhabhi)-Champabai came there and during their intervention, the present appellant also inflicted injuries to them with iron pipe on their head. Thereafter, on reaching of other neighbours, the accused persons fled away

from the spot threatening the complainant party to dire consequences. On 08.06.2017, during treatment, deceased died.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the trial Court is not based upon the evidence available on record and deserves to be set aside. The trial Court failed to see that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to establish any motive of the appellant/accused behind to commit said crime. He further submits that the trial Court has overlooked the fact that most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. Actually, no case is made out against the present appellant under Sections 304-II of IPC as well as Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was the member of Scheduled Caste community but there is no evidence available on record on which it can be said that the appellant committed any offence only because of the deceased belonged to such community. Complainant and other witnesses did not depose any fact before the trial in this regard. He cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khuman Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1104. Apart from this, appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years out of which he has already suffered more than 4 years of jail sentence. There is material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The appeal is of year 2020 and due to spread of COVID-19 pandemic, it will take sufficient time for its final disposal. With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing this application.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as 3 CRA-2828-2020 learned counsel for the objector opposes the same submitting that the offence committed by the appellant/accused is serious in nature. The prosecution has proved its case beyond any doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. With the aforesaid, they pray for dismissal of this application.

Heard both the parties and perused the record.

On perusal, the allegation which found proved by the trial Court against the appellant/accused is that present appellant along with other co-accused committed murder of deceased and also inflicted injuries to complainant and other victims.

It is an admitted fact that the present appellant and deceased are neighbours. Incident occurred due to trivial matter. There is no material available on record on which it can be said that the appellant committed death of the deceased because the deceased belonged to SC community. The appellant is in jail since 08.06.2017, so he has served about 4 years of jail sentence out of 7 years of conviction. Appeal is of year 2020 and due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, it will take sufficient time in its final disposal.

Having considered the aforesaid circumstances and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that execution of jail sentence awarded to the appellant should be suspended and he be released on bail. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I.A. No.14038/2020 is allowed.

It is directed that, execution of jail sentence of the appellant-Ramji Burman shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal subject to depositing of fine amount, if already not deposited and he be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial court on 15.11.2021 and 4 CRA-2828-2020 thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard.

I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the appellant shall also comply with the rules and norms of physical distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020 , it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-

1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the appellant by the jail doctor before his release.

2. The appellant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.

3 . If it is found that the appellant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.

List this matter for final hearing in due course along with Cr.A.No.2413/2020.

C.C. as per rules.

                   (NANDITA DUBEY)                          (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
                       JUDGE                                                JUDGE


            sp
Digitally signed by ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.07.20 17:58:18 +05'30'