Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhanu @ Chikna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 January, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(DB: HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HON. Mr. RAJENDRA
KUMAR (VERMA)
Criminal Appeal No.1408/2017
( Bhanu @ Chikna Vs. The State of M.P.)
Date: 11.01.2022 INDORE :
Shri Amar Singh Rathore , learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.22889/2021, which is Second application
under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence
filed on behalf of the appellant-Bhanu @ Chikna.
The present appeal has been filed against judgment dated
30.06.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Indore in
Special Case Trial No.59/2012 whereby the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148, 302,
307/149, 324/149, 323 (two counts) of I.P.C., Section 25(1-B) (b) of
Arms Act and Section 3(2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced
to undergo 2 years R.I., life imprisonment, 10 years R.I., 3 years R.I.,
1 year R.I., 2 years R.I. and life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-
each for the offence under Section 302 and 307/149 of I.P.C. Section
25(1-B) (b) of Arms Act and Section 3(2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with
default stipulation.
First application for suspension of remaining jail sentence was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.12.2018.
As per prosecution story on 09.02.2012 Laxman son of Bonder
lodged a Dehati Nalish that he was sitting grocery shop infront of his
- : 2 :-
house. At about 11:00 Raju and Sonu came there and enquired about
the Naveen and started abusing him by filthy language. Raju was
carrying country made pistol and Sonu was carrying baseball in his
hand. The grandson of Laxman i.e. Ashok came out side. They told
that Naveen has put their hut in the fire. Scuffle started between
Raju, Sonu and Ashok. Thereafter Sonu called Sanju, Bharat, Vishnu,
Bhaiyalal, Sitaram, [email protected] Chikna (present appellant). They all
came spot equipped with knife, sword, Gupti, Baseball and stick in
their hands. Sanju gave a blow by sword to Ashok in his neck. He
gave second blow on the chest of Ashok. Thereafter Ashok caught
hold the Sanju then Bhanu stabbed the knife in his stomach. He fell
down. Naveen tried to save the Ashok, then Sitaram gave a blow by
sword. Thereafter other relatives came to rescue them, they also
assaulted by stick. The incident was witnessed by Baby Bai
thereafter all accused persons fled away from the spot. All the injured
were admitted in the M.Y. Hospital where Ashok succumbed to the
injuries. The charge-sheet was filed against as many as seven
accused persons. The prosecution has examined 20 witnesses to
establish the charges. PW-1 and PW-2 have supported the case of
prosecution. After appreciating the evidence came on record, the
learned Special Judge vide judgment dated 30.06.2017 has convicted
all the seven accused for the above offences.
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred para 20 and 25
of statement of Laxman (PW-1) and submitted that no such report
was lodged by him immediately after the incident. Likewise he has
also referred para 4 of statement of Rohit (PW-2), who has also
stated that on the date of incident no such report was lodged. Except,
Sitaram, Bhanu (appellant) and Sanju, the sentence of other co-
accused have been suspended by this Court. Hence, remaining jail
- : 3 :-
sentence of the appellant may be suspended.
Learned Government Advocate opposes the application by
submitting that the minor omission and contradictions are liable to be
ignored. PW-1 and PW-2 in their deposition have fully supported the
case of prosecution. The injuries sustained to deceased turned fatal as
per the postmortem report. The appellant has not completed 10 years
sentence so far. Apart from PW-1 and PW-2, Gourabai (PW-7) have
also supported the case of prosecution.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Having been seen the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 and PW-7,
there is specific allegation about assault by this appellant by means
of sword to the deceased. The Dehati Nalish was lodged on the same
day. PW-1 has identified his signature in the Dehati Nalish.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion, no case is made
out for suspension of remaining jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.22889/2021 is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per Rules.
VIVEK RUSIA RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
praveen/-
PRAVEEN NAYAK
2022.01.12 18:37:47 +05'30'
