Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.1591 of 2018
(Bharat Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 08.07.2022
Shri Arvind Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.1460/2022, fourth application under Section 389
(1) of the Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed
on behalf of the appellant Bharat Singh Yadav.
Present appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated
15.12.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Datia, District Datia in
ST No.130/2011 as under:-
Under Section Imprisonment Fine
148 of IPC 03 years
302/149 of IPC LI 10,000/-
307/149 of IPC (on four 03 Years 2500/-
count)
Before adverting to the facts, it is expedient to observe that out of
10 accused persons Jainendra Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Ranvir Singh S/o
Jahar Singh, Roop Singh S/o Dayal Singh, Ratan Singh S/o Jahar Singh,
Ajab Singh S/o Jagdish Singh Yadav, Mangal Singh @ Mangu S/o
Babulal Yadav and Bharat Singh @ Babbu S/o Bhagwan Singh Yadav
have been acquitted whereas Raja @ Akhilesh S/o Rajkumar Yadav,
Balwan S/o Parasram Yadav and Bharat Singh S/o Parshuram Yadav
stand convicted.
In case of Balwan Singh S/o Shri Parasram, jail sentence had been
suspended by this Court on 01.11.2019 and in case of Raja alias Akhilesh
S/o Rajkumar Yadav Singh, jail sentence had been suspended by this
Court on 17.01.2020. As such among convicted persons, appellant is
undergoing jail incarceration. He is in custody since 15.12.2016; as such
almost 6 years' period has passed by besides the jail incarceration during
trial.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is case of false
implication. From the Dehati Nalishi, it is well evident that complainant
himself has alleged rivalry between the appellant and complainant, as is
explicit from the following facts:-
In the evening of 28.07.2011, it is alleged that due to past
animosity, accused persons named above had come to the house of the
complainant namely Chhotelal with predetermined mind having common
intention with firearm and deadly weapon to cause grievous injuries and
also homicidal death. In Dehati Nalishi, it is alleged by the complainant
namely Chhotelal S/o Atar Singh that gunshot fired by Bharatsingh alias
Babbu hit the deceased in stomach. Jayendra S/o Ratan Singh had caused
gunshot injury on the hand of the deceased Mansharam. As a result,
Mansharam died on the spot. Thereafter, indiscriminate gunshots were
fired by all the assailants. However, the complainant and ladies of the
family had a narrow escape. After recording of the statements under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the F.I.R. was lodged. After completion of
investigation, the challan was filed and case was committed for sessions
trial.
The Sessions Judge upon evaluation of the evidence placed on
record, with due advertance to the seized material proved before the
Court, convicted the appellant and others and sentenced them as referred
above.
Shri R.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, while
criticizing the impugned judgment further submits that the judgment
suffers from patent perversity as the same is based on conjecture and
surmises. Relevant evidence and material placed on record were not
considered. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the consistent
statement of complainant made in Dehati Nalshi, F.I.R. and statement
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. alleging that gunshot injuries were
caused by Bharat Singh alias Babbu S/o Bhagwan Singh Yadav,
Jayendra Singh S/o Ratan Singh runs contrary to ocular evidence
recorded during the course of trial, inasmuch as though, in the aforesaid
documents, the allegation of gunshot injuries is attributed to Bharat
Singh alias Babbu S/o Bhagwan Singh Yadav and Jayendra Singh S/o
Ratan Singh whereas before the Court the allegation of causing gunshot
injuries is against the present appellant - Bharat Singh alias Babbu S/o
Bhagwan Singh, Balwant S/o Parasram and Raja alias Akhilesh S/o
Rajkumar Yadav. There is no explanation on record to justify such
startling variation/contradiction in the ocular evidence before the Court.
The incident is of dated 28.04.2011 and statement recorded under Section
161 of Cr.P.C., F.I.R. and Dehati Nalishi were made on same date
whereas the court statements were recorded on 13.07.2012. There is
strong possibility of extraneous interventions in the course of events
which led to false allegation made against the appellant and Raja alias
Akhilesh contrary to the initial statement of the complainant. Trial Court
unmindful of the aforesaid facts and circumstances has solely relied upon
the ocular evidence without corroboration with the evidence on record
and convicted the appellant. Even otherwise the appellant has already
suffered jail incarceration of more than six years' after judgment and
substantial period during the trial. Appeal is of the year 2018. There is no
likelihood of early hearing of the appeal. Custodial sentences of all
convicted persons namely Raja alias Akhilesh, Balwan S/o Parsuram
have already been suspended. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer is
made for suspension of sentence also on the ground of parity.
Per contra, Shri Shukla, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
State supported the impugned judgment with submission that there is no
apparent consistency in the ocular evidence recorded during the course of
trial. Learned Sessions Judge, upon critical evaluation of the evidence
placed on record has reached to an impeccable finding. The complicity of
the appellant in the aforesaid facts and circumstances cannot be ruled
out. Hence, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of
sentence.
Upon hearing counsel for the parties, though this court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the matter
but looking to the fact that appeal is of year 2018 and appellant has
already suffered more than 6 years of incarceration, jail sentences of co-
accused-Balwan Singh S/o Shri Parasram and Raja alias Akhilesh S/o
Rajkumar Yadav Singh have already been suspended by this Court, this
Court is of the view that the application deserves to be allowed. It is,
accordingly, directed that execution of jail sentences of appellant shall
remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be
enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and
also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 05/09/2022, 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, the medical examination of appellant 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, appellant 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.No.1460/2022 stands allowed and disposed
of.
Certified copy as per rules.
List for final hearing in due course.
(Rohit Arya) (Anand Pathak)
Judge Judge
Ashish*
ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH CHAURASIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
CHAUR
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=bf81a9adb1da24e4bc7b5195154c3d4de
08c6bb9303e52e2e7e728d9bac85bd3,
pseudonym=CA2EA6EDDF504F8F9C2790FA9A0F
D201D0242B64,
serialNumber=A926F3CBF979ECA6A4C477577EE
ASIA
DBA3AB4F94593A930B98DAE1B0AD16F90B5FD,
cn=ASHISH CHAURASIA
Date: 2022.07.09 10:46:09 -07'00'
