Asharam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1426 MP

               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                  1
                            Cr.A. 919/2014
            (ASHARAM VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )


Gwalior, Dated : 01/02/2022
     Shri A.R. Shivhare, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Rajesh Shukla, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent-State.

Heard on I.A. No 17233/2021, 13th application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the sole appellant

-Asharam.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21/07/2014 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in S.T. No. 146/2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo six months imprisonment.

The first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 18/11/2014.

As per prosecution story, while the complainant Phoolabai W/o Suresh along with her mother-in-law namely Longshri were carrying mustard plants in the Behad field, at that time, her husband Suresh, brother-in-law (Jeth) Rajaram, brother-in-law (Devar) Gyan Singh, Deshraj and Rajendra were also working in the field. At that relevant time, the appellant (Asharam) armed with 12 bore gun along with his brother namely Bairo Singh armed with Mouzer gun came at the spot of incident and appellant/Asharam told Longshri that this field belongs to him, therefore, she ought not to carry mustard plants into his field, on which, Longshri stated that this THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Cr.A. 919/2014 (ASHARAM VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

field belongs to her, therefore, she would continue to carry mustard plants into the said field. Thereafter, accused Bairo Singh exhorted appellant/Asharam to kill Longshri, on which, appellant/Asharam fired gun shot from his 12 bore gun, which hit into the stomach of Longshri. Thereafter, complainant Phoolabai came to rescue her mother-in-law Longshri, at that time, appellant Asharam fired gun shot on the complainant Phoolabai, but the same did not hit her and went over her head. Thereafter, all the persons working in the field raised alarm, due to which, appellant/Asharam and accused Bairo Singh fled away from the spot of incident. With the aforesaid allegation, crime No. 75/2010 has been registered at police station Sabalgarh, District Morena. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, challan has been filed and the case was handed over to the Sessions Judge for trial.

Shri A.R. Shivhare, learned counsel for the appellant primarily argued on the ground of long jail incarceration inter alia contended that prior to passing of the impugned judgment dated 21/07/2014, the appellant has suffered incarceration of about two years seven months and sixteen days and after passing of the impugned judgment, he has suffered total incarceration of near about ten (10) years. Secondly, learned counsel for the appellant argued that except the complainant Phoolabai (PW/2) all other eye- witnesses have turned hostile and they did not support the story of the prosecution, therefore, no credibility could have attached to the deposition of complainant Phoolabai (PW/2) for maintaining conviction of the appellant under section 302 of IPC.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Cr.A. 919/2014 (ASHARAM VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Per contra, Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State by referring to para 40 of the impugned judgment submits that testimony of complainant Phoolabai (PW/2) is fully corroborated not only in cross examination, but also with the prosecution's case, allegation levelled in the FIR, investigation carried out and medical evidence. Therefore, not only the complicity, but also direct involvement of appellant Asharam in commission of murder of the deceased is as clear as noon in the day. Hence, no exception for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant as contended by learned counsel for the appellant can be taken.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds substantial force in the submission of State counsel. Prima facie, it is a clear case of murder in a day time, which is duly proved by testimonies of eye-witnesses and other corroborated witnesses as placed on record.

This Court is of the view that at this stage, no case is made out for suspension of sentence.

Consequently, I.A. No. 17233/2021 is dismissed on merits.

            (Rohit Arya)                                                 (Satish Kumar Sharma)
              JUDGE                                                           JUDGE
Durgekar*


SANJAY          Digitally signed by SANJAY NAMDEORAO
                DURGEKAR
                DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA


NAMDEOR
                PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
                OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,

postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=afa4701a2661e1fb7720c022ffc27760

AO 8ce55ba67f3594a641181b9ae8448e58, pseudonym=DA26B82C5BC4CAF69072CA5A1 3CA996C4169AB06, serialNumber=1190D1488DBA862FB108ED66

DURGEKAR 262DC2DC2CB9D310D73128B3A6E7B046FCF 28227, cn=SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Date: 2022.02.02 16:05:40 +05'30'