Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shukhram Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 October, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-1212-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1212-2017
(SHUKHRAM JATAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
22
Gwalior, Dated : 01-10-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel for the Appellants.
Shri Devendra Chobey, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
I.A. No. 8496/2021, an application for urgent hearing is taken up,
considered and disposed of.
I.A. No.17165/2020, an application under Section 389(1) Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the instance of Appellant No.2- Shivram, for
suspension of jail sentence awarded by the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Sessions Trial No.253/2013 vide its judgment
dated 07/07/2017 convicting him under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentencing
him life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 323/34 and
sentencing him rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.200/-
with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellant No. 2 submits that he prays for
suspension of sentence on the ground of parity with other co-accused Dhara
Shing who has already been extended the benefit of suspension of sentence
vide order dated 30.08.2019. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant-
accused that Nagar @ Chhotu, Babulal, Ashok and Dataram were acquitted
for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 in alternate 302/149, 307 (two
counts) in alternate 307/149 (two counts), 323 (five counts) in alternate
section 323 read with 149 (five counts) of IPC. It is urged that present
Appellant also along-with accused Sukhram were acquitted under Sections
147, 148, 307 in alternate 307/149 (two counts) but has been convicted under
Section 302/34 of IPC, on the testimony of injured eye-witness viz., Haridas,
Sumeeta, Udai Singh, Manohar, Raghuveer, Ramvaran and Jagdish who made
2 CRA-1212-2017
omnibus statement of causing injuries with sharp edged weapons such as axe,
shovel and by iron rod.
The role attributed to present Appellant is that he caused injuries to
Savitri with iron rod (saria) on her hips. It is urged that the main injury which
was attributed to Dhara Singh, has already been extended the benefit of
suspension of sentence vide order dated 30.08.2019 and with the aid of
Section 34 of IPC with which Appellant No.2 has been prosecuted and
convicted when tested on the anvil of the entire evidence on record, it will
establish that the present Appellant did not share common intention with the
main assailant of causing death either of deceased or the injured person. It is
urged that the sentence of the Appellant may be suspended on the same terms
and conditions on which co-accused Dhara Singh had been enlarged and
appellant shall abide with all those conditions.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, however, opposes
the application. It is urged that there being ample and credible evidence on
record. The Trial Court was well within its jurisdiction and found appellant
guilty of having shared common intention in causing murder of Savitri Bai.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the entire evidence on record, but without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the sentence of Appellant No.2-Shivram
Jatav is suspended, subject to furnishing the bail bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two like sureties of close relatives of
Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 28/01/2022 and on all such subsequent
dates as may be fixed in this regard.
I.A. No.17165/2020 stands disposed of in above terms.
Certified copy as per rules .
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE JUDGE
(LJ*)
LOKENDRA JAIN
2021.10.01
18:03:38 +05'30'
3 CRA-1212-2017
