Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sajjan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CR. A. No. 2473 / 2021
SAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP
--- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 28/09/2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Mr. S. C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel appearing
with Mr. Rohit Saboo, Advocate for the appellant.
Mrs. Vinita Phaye, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent - State.
Heard on I.A.No. 24283/2021, which is second
application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of appellant No.1 -
Sajjan Singh for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment
dated 24/3/2021 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions
Judge, Agar, Distt. Shajapur (MP) in S.T.No. 117/2016, as
under :
Conviction Sentence
Section Act. Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
deposited in lieu of fine
302/149 IPC Life Rs.2,000/- 3 months RI
imprisonment
147 IPC 1 year RI Rs.500/- 1 month RI
148 IPC 2 years RI Rs.500/- 1 month RI
329/149 IPC 1 year RI Rs.500/- 1 month RI
Earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn on
7/7/2021.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a 61 years old person and he has been implicated
falsely by the complainant. The impugned order passed by
the learned Court below is contrary to law and facts of the
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CR. A. No. 2473 / 2021
SAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP
--- 2 ---
case and is passed without proper appreciation of evidence
adduced before the Court during trial. There are so many
contradictions regarding the place of incident and the manner
of the incident. Only a stick of 'Neem' wood has been
allegedly seized from appellant Sajjan Singh. All the
witnesses are relative and interested witnesses. They cannot
be relied upon. Medical evidence did not support the
prosecution case. Appellant did not possess any deadly
weapon. The prosecution story is very unnatural. In these
circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant prays for
grant of bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence of
the appellant No.1 - Sajjan Singh.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent - State strongly opposed the prayer and prays for
its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
After perusal of the impugned order and the evidence
available on record, it is clear that Dilip Singh (PW 1);
Raghusingh (PW 2); Kripal Singh (PW 3); Shivsingh (PW 4)
and Bhagwan Singh (PW 5) are the eye-witnesses and they
have categorically stated in their statement regarding the role
of the present appellant - Sajjan Singh in the incident.
Appellant is also named in the FIR. As per post-mortem
report (Ex.P/3) and the statement of Dr. Vijendra (PW 10),
the deceased sustained 10 wounds and the cause of death is
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CR. A. No. 2473 / 2021
SAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP
--- 3 ---
homicidal in nature. One stick is recovered from the
possession of the appellant. Appellant - Sajjan Singh did not
state anything in his entire statement of accused that he was
not present at the time of incident.
On due consideration of the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the
nature of the offence, material evidence available on record,
without commenting upon the merits of the case, we are not
inclined to allow the application. Accordingly, I.A.No.
24283/2021 is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
KR
Digitally signed by KAMAL RATHORE
Date: 2021.09.28 15:45:25 +05'30'
