Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prahlad Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
Criminal Appeal No.1177/2021 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
Criminal Appeal No.1177/2021
Prahlad Singh & Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh
Indore, dated 31.05.2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri
Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate
for the respondent / State.
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 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.
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.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
V. J U D G E V. J U D G E
Ravi
Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH
Date: 2021.06.01 11:03:27 +05'30'
