Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 496 of 2015
(BALVEER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-08-2022
Shri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent-State.
Heard on I.A.No.16498/2020, first application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant no.1 Balveer
Singh.
Appellant No.1 stood convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-, Section
307/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 07 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- with
default stipulation respectively and Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to
suffer 06 months RI vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30/05/2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District-Morena in
Sessions Trial No.338/2012.
As per prosecution story, on 15/07/2012 at about 12:30 in the afternoon
while deceased Jitendra with his brother Surendra and father Laxman were
ploughing field, accidentally cow belonging to deceased Jitendra crossed-over
the field of appellant No1-Balveer. Enraged with such occurrence, accused
Balveer Singh armed with one mouser gun, Vinod armed with Dhariya, Ravi
with Ballam and Channa with Lathi started hurling filthy abuses and on being
objected by deceased/complainant, appellant No.1 is alleged to have fired
gunshot piercing abdomen area of the deceased and passed through and
through. Likewise, other co-accused persons caused injuries to the complainant
side by Dhariya Ballam, Lathi as described in paragraph 3 of the impugned
judgment. Deceased Jitendra was rushed to the hospital where incident was
narrated in the form of Dehati Nalsi. Thereafter, FIR was lodged at Crime
No.57/2012 at Police Station Nagra under Section 307, 323 and 294/34 of IPC.
After nine days of hospitalization, deceased Jitendra passed away.
Upon recording statements of witnesses and collection of incriminating
material, Challan was filed before JMFC and the case was committed to the
Sessions Court for trial.
The trial Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record
and statements recorded, convicted and sentenced appellant No.1 as referred
above.
Learned counsel for appellant No.1 while taking exception to the
impugned judgment tried to prick holes in it. It is submitted that findings
recorded are perverse and based on surmises and conjectures. Evidence has
not been appreciated in its right perspective. Co-accused namely Ravi, Vinod,
Chhana have been given the benefit of suspension of sentence by this Court.
Besides that, appellant No.1 has already suffered jail incarceration for over 10
years. Even accepting the case of the prosecution, the act attributed to the
appellant No.1 shall fall within the four-corners of Section 304 part-I, for which
sentence is life imprisonment or imprisonment for ten years. Appeal is of the
year 2015. There is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal. Under such
circumstances, learned counsel prays that appellant No.1 may be enlarged on
bail. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case in the case of Ram Autar and Anothers Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2017) 1 SCC (cri) 749 to bolster his submissions.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ State while supporting
the impugned judgment opposes the application with the submission that it is a
case of murder as appellant No.1 had fired gun shot in a close proximity hitting
the deceased in his abdomen area and the bullet has passed through and
through. Hence, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions touching the merits of the case,
however, regard being had to the fact that appellant No.1 has already suffered
for over ten years of jail incarceration, hence, the application deserves to be and
is hereby allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant no.1
Balveer Singh shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail subject
to verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing
a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The
appellant No.1 is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
30/09/2022 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with
following further conditions:-
(i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing the
appellant No.1, his medical examination be conducted through the jail doctor
and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-19,
then the consequential follow up action or any further test required be
undertaken immediately. If not, the appellant No.1 shall be released on bail in
terms of the conditions imposed in this order;
(ii) in case of violation of conditions, State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A.No.16498/2020 and shall have no bearing on the merits of the
appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
vc
VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
2022.08.03
10:26:51 +05'30'
