Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemraj Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 6061 of 2021
(HEMRAJ LODHI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-02-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants No.1 to 3.
Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Sinha
learned counsel for the appellant No.4.
Sushri Nalini Gurung, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri Prakash Upadhayay, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard on IA No. 18366/2021, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellants Hemraj Lodhi, Keshav
Lodhi, Surat Singh Lodhi and Jagdish Gurjar.
The appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of
the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 yeas and fine of
Rs.2000/- each with default stipulation.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants by taking this Court
to the prosecution story and findings in para-4, submits that the
offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not made out. At best
appellants could have been held guilty for committing offence under
Section 325 of the I.P.C. The appellants already remained in custody
from the date of judgment. The final hearing of this appeal in near
future is not possible.
Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants No.1 to 3 in
addition to aforesaid stand taken by learned Senior Counsel urged that
the Court below in para-25 has given certain findings which are not as
per prosecution's own case. As per para-32 of the impugned
judgment, accused Surat Singh has assaulted the injured on his left
hand by 'danda'. In para-33 of the impugned judgement, finding of
assault by accused Keshav on the leg of injured is given. As per para-
44 and 70 of the impugned judgment, it is clear that injury on the
head of injured was simple in nature. The Court disbelieved the
statement of injured in para-72 and 74 of the judgment. Similarly, in
para-80 of the judgement, the statement of injured Toran Singh that
he was unconscious for eight days was disbelieved. Two injuries on
left leg and right wrist were not sufficient to attract Section 307 of
the I.P.C. Appellant Hemraj remained in custody for about one year.
Ms. Nalini Gurung, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer on
the basis of findings of Court below.
Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the complainant
also opposed the prayer and contended that judgment is not
appropriately worded and therefore, the complainant has filed a
separate appeal against the impugned judgment which will be heard in
due course. Appellants have criminal record. Against Hemraj, Surat
Singh and Jagdish, 9, 18 and 11 criminal cases are pending
respectively. Thus, the bail be declined.
Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel submits that no record of
criminal history is available against the appellants No.1 to 3. The
Court below has not given any finding in this regard.
Learned counsel for the complainant/objector has also not filed
any documents to substantiate the same.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the
record and the objection.
Considering the nature of accusation and injuries caused by the
appellants coupled with fact that in near future, final hearing of this
appeal is not possible in this pandemic era, we deem it proper to
suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellants, without
expressing any conclusive opinion on merits of the case.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already
deposited), the remaining jail sentence of the appellants is hereby
suspended.
Accordingly, aforesaid IA is allowed. The execution of jail
sentence of appellants Hemraj Lodhi, Keshav Lodhi, Surat Singh
Lodhi and Jagdish Gurjar are hereby suspended and it is directed
that the appellants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with
one solvent surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
trial court with a further direction to appear before the trial court,
Sehore on 22.06.2022 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed
by the trial court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
C c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ahd
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD
Date: 2022.02.09 10:23:33 IST
