Bheem Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5343 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                         CR. A. No. 3078 / 2021
                      BHEEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP
                                                              --- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 13/09/2021
        Heard through video conferencing.
        Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
        Mr. Valmiki Shakargaye, learned GA for the
respondent - State.

Heard on I.A.No. 10771/2021, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of appellant Bheem Singh for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. Appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 1/11/2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharampur, Distt. Dhar in S.T.No. 293/2014, as under :

 Conviction                            Sentence
      Section         Act.    Imprisonment Fine       Imprisonment
                                                      in lieu of fine
302             IPC           Life           2000/-   6 months.
                              imprisonment

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no independent witnesses in the case. Learned lower Court has not appreciated the controversy in its correct perspective and did not properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution. As per the FIR, appellant allegedly assaulted on the right cheek of the deceased, but in the statement before the trial Court, witnesses stated that appellant attacked on frontal bone of the deceased. This important contradiction was not considered by the learned trial Court. Dr. Sumit Jaiswal (PW 15) who is treating Doctor has stated that due to HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

CR. A. No. 3078 / 2021 BHEEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

--- 2 ---

such injury no one could die. Actually the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy and due to Epilepsy attack he died. Learned Court below has committed error in not giving benefit of doubt. Final conclusion of this appeal is likely to take a sufficiently long time. Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Mayandi Vs. State reported in 2010 (III) MPWN 69; Sunil Kundu and another Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2013 Cri.L.J. 2339; State of Maharashtra Vs. Syed Umar Sayed Abbas reported in (AIR 2016 SC 863); Md. Sajjad Alias Raju Alias Salim Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (AIR 2017 SC 642); and, the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and another Vs. State of M.P. Reported in (AIR 2010 SC

762).

Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent - State strongly opposed the prayer for suspension of custodial sentence and submits that sufficient evidence is available on record to establish the guilt of the appellant in the alleged offence. Appellant was properly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court and, therefore, no case for suspension of his jail sentence is made out. In such circumstances the application be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

CR. A. No. 3078 / 2021 BHEEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

--- 3 ---

record.

Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that Ajay (PW 1) is the eye-witness. He has specifically stated that appellant gave axe blow to the deceased. His evidence is well supported by Anuradha (PW 2), Kunwar Singh (PW 7) and Bhagirath (PW 8). There is no material contradictions between the ocular evidence and medical evidence. The axe used in the aforementioned crime has been seized from possession of the present appellant. Looking to the evidence, there is no doubt about the identity of present appellant. This Court has very carefully gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, facts of the present case are distinguishable.

In the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for grant of bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence. Accordingly, I.A.No. 10771/2021 is rejected.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

                      (SUJOY PAUL)                (ANIL VERMA)
                        JUDGE                       JUDGE
       KR




Digitally signed by KAMAL RATHORE
Date: 2021.09.13 15:03:15 +05'30'