Prem Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5244 MP

                                                                         1                                  CRR No.-884-2022

                                                  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR

                                                              Criminal Revision No.884/2022
                                                        (Prem Singh Lodhi & Others Vs. State of M.P.)

                                        Jabalpur, dated : 11-04-2022

                                              Shri Abdhesh Kumar Gupta, counsel for the applicants.

                                              Shri Pradeep Gupta, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

Heard on admission.

Revision appears to be arguable, therefore, admitted for hearing.

2. Also heard on I.A.No.4301/2022 which is the first application under Section 397(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence of the applicants.

3. By way of present revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC, the applicants have challenged the judgment and order dated 03.03.2022 passed in CRA No.13/2021 by the Sessions Judge, Raisen, District Raisen (M.P.) whereby the judgment dated 16.07.2021 passed in Criminal Case No.401/2017 by JMFC, Raisen, District Raisen has been upheld. Vide said judgment, the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as under :

                                               Conviction under section                    Sentence to undergo
                                                    324/34 of IPC            R.I. for 1         fine of     Default- R.I.
                                        (applicant No.1-Prem Singh Lodhi and   year            Rs.1,000/-   for 1 month
                                            applicant No.2-Manish Lodhi)
                                                     324/34 of IPC                R.I. for 6    fine of     Default- R.I.
                                             (applicant No.3-Neeraj Lodhi)         months      Rs.1,000/-   for 1 month

4. Learned counsel for the applicants invited attention of the Court towards the contradictions appear in the statements of the witnesses, particularly; the statements of Virendra Singh (P.W.-1), Sunil (P.W.-2) and Bheem Singh (P.W.-3) regarding the presence of light on the spot and the distance of temple form the place of incident. His second contention is that witness of seizure Tulsiram (P.W.-7) has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that Bheem Singh (P.W.-3) has admitted that he was not on the spot but was sitting at a shop. Priest of the temple Sukhdev (P.W.-8) has not supported the case of the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants further drew attention of the Court towards the statement of victim Virendra Singh who has stated that the village Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2022.04.11 17:51:14 IST

situated about 100 kms. away from the place of the incident and still, he said that any sound or voice or call may be heard in the village which is improbable or impossible. It is submitted that trial Court has erred in appreciating all these facts, therefore, the judgments of both the Courts below are perverse and deserve to be set-aside.

6. In reply, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the contradictions are minor. Both the parties were acquainted with each-other, therefore, presence of light is immaterial. Priest of the temple Sukhdev (P.W.-8) has supported the incident on material point. There is no contradiction with regard to distance of temple from the place of the incident. Bheem Singh (P.W.3) has stated that he was sitting on the shop and the shop was near to the place of incident, therefore, contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants are immaterial.

7. It is further submitted that the victim has deposed on oath before the Court against the applicants and his statement was supported by eye-witnesses Sunil (P.W.-2) and Bheem Singh (P.W.-3). Correspondence injuries have been detected in the medical examination which have been proved by Dr. Rituraj Singh (P.W.-10). The statements of witnesses have also been supported by Dehati Nalishi and statement of Investigating Officer D.P. Singh (P.W.-4). Both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution, therefore, custodial sentence of the applicants may not be suspended.

8. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record.

9. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the statements recorded before the trial Court & its appreciation by both the Courts below, I do not deem it appropriate to suspend the sentence of the applicants, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I.A. No.4301/2022 is dismissed.

10. Let the revision be listed for final hearing in due course.

(Virender Singh) Judge @shish Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2022.04.11 17:51:14 IST