Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pratap Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 29 July, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 658 of 2017
(PRATAP SINGH RAJPUT AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
Dated : 29-07-2022
Shri Dhirendra Singh- Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/ State.
Heard on IA No.3854 of 2022, which is the third application under
Section 389(1) of CrPC for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on
behalf of appellant No.3- Ghanshyam Kirar.
Vide judgment dated 29th April, 2017 passed by Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (MP) in ST No.500243/2010, the present appellant
stands convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.
Total number of accused persons tried for offence are, namely,
Bhagwan Singh, Pratap Singh Rajput, Raghuvir Singh Rajput, Gopal Singh and
Ghanshyam Kirar out of which, the co-convicted accused, namely, Pratap
Singh, Raghuvir Singh and Gopal Singh have been granted suspension of jail
sentence by this Court.
As per prosecution story, on 22-02-2010, an information was received
from Dr.R.S.Gupta (PW2) District Hospital, Shivpuri that a lady with burn
injuries, namely, Rajni has been brought to the Hospital by her husband Rampal
(PW3). During the course of her treatment, the Dying Declaration of Rajni was
recorded in presence of Tehsildar, Shivpuri vide Ex.P1 wherein she has alleged
that accused Ghanshyam, Gopal Sarpanch, Raghuvir, Pratap Singh, brother-in-
law (jeth) Gopal, Kailash, sister-in-law (jethani) Ratnu and Dharmendra have
caught hold of her and sprinkled kerosene oil on her entire body and thereafter,
set her on ablaze. After recording statement of deceased Rajni and collection of
important material, challan was filed and case was committed to Sessions Court
for trial and the Trial Court has convicted the appellant primarily on the strength
of Dying Declaration.
Learned Counsel for the appellants while criticizing the impugned
judgment, contends that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity. The
relevant evidence has not been considered by Trial Court and undue weightage
has been given to the Dying Declaration. In any case, the close relatives are
alleged to have sprinkled the kerosene oil on the body of deceased and set her
on ablaze. Besides, remaining persons named in the Dying Delcaration are
declared absconding. The jail sentence of three co-convicted accused persons
of this case including one Gopal Singh have been already been suspended. As
appellant No.3 is neither the relative nor proximately alleged to have committed
the crime, therefore, he seeks parity. It is further submitted that there is no
likelihood of early disposal of appeal in near future and appellant No.3 has
suffered incarceration of five and half years and prayed for suspension of jail
sentence.
The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/
State.
Upon hearing counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from
commenting upon the rival contentions touching merits of the case, regard being
had to the fact that appellant No.3 has suffered incarceration for five and half
years, the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, therefore, in the
obtaining facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to suspend the
sentence of appellant No.3 Ghanshyam Kirar during pendency of appeal.
Consequently, IA deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the
execution of jail sentence of appellant No.3 Ghanshyam Kirar shall remain
suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail
subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
two lac only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
trial Court and also subject to deposit of fine amount ( if not already deposited)
for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28th September, 2022
and on further dates as may be fixed by Registry in this regard with following
further conditions:-
(i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing
appellant No.3, medical examination of appellant No.3 be conducted though jail
doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of Covid-
19, then the consequential follow up action and any further test required be
undertaken immediately. If not, the appellant No.3 shall be released on bail in
terms of the conditions imposed in this order.
(ii) in case of violation of condition, the State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, IA stands allowed and disposed of .
It is made clear that observations made on facts shall have no bearing on
the merits of appeal.
CC as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
Digitally signed by MAHENDRA
BARIK
Date: 2022.07.29 17:31:02 +05'30'
