Paluaa Baghel @ Amarlal vs State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 9111 MP

                                     1
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            AT GWALIOR
                               CRA No. 45 of 2013
                 (PALUAA BAGHEL @ AMARLAL AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF M.P.)

Dated : 08-07-2022
        Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants.

        Shri   Rajesh    Shukla,    learned    Dy.Advocate       General   for   the
respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.7808/2022, forth application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant No.1-Paluwa Baghel @ Amarlal. Appellant No.1 stands convicted under Section 302 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced to

suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16/01/2013 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. Appellant is undergoing jail sentence since 16/01/2013 and during trial he has also undergone jail sentence for 423 days.

As per prosecution story, on 08/09/2011, Munnalal S/o Shrichand Dhakad, R/o Jalwasa, lodged a complaint that he is a farmer and while he was at home, Parvati Bai (PW-1) wife of his younger brother deceased Ramswaroop came to him weeping and stated that body of her husband deceased

Ramswaroop and wife of appellant Radha Bai are lying on the portico of the house of appellant Paluwa. On such information, when the complainant reached to the house of appellant, he found body of the deceased Ramswaroop and that of Radha Bai in a compromising position and in the pool of blood. Two contusions were found on the neck of deceased Ramswaroop and blood was oozing out and three contusions were found on the neck of Radha Bai and blood was oozing out. Three children of appellant i.e. daughters Bharti,

Krishna and son Master Ranveer were locked inside the house of the appellant.

It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased Ramswaroop had illicit relationship with the wife of the appellant Radha Bai. Despite counseling by the appellant, both the deceased did not mend their ways. It is alleged that appellant No.1; husband of deceased Radha Bai had seen both of them in a compromising position and being enraged, he caused injury to them resulting into their homicidal death. As such, their dead bodies were recovered in a compromising position. After incident, appellant No.1-Palluwa is said to have been absconding from the village. Accordingly, FIR was registered. Investigation was undertaken. Upon recording of the statement of the witnesses

and collection of incriminating material, challan was filed and thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

The trial Judge after critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record, has recorded findings about the guilt of the appellant No.1-Paluwa alongwith co-accused Jamuna Bai and sentenced them for life imprisonment as referred above. It may be relevant to mention that in the case of co-accused Jamuna Bai, sentence has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 27/09/2013.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 while taking exception to the impugned judgment inter alia contended that the trial Judge has committed serious illegality as the impugned judgment suffers from perversity of approach. The conclusions drawn are based on surmises and conjecture. Relevant piece of evidence has not been considered by the Court below. Even otherwise, regard being had to the factual matrix as reflected from the judgment, it is not a case of murder, instead it is the case of homicidal death not amounting to murder as defined under Section 300 exception (1) of IPC. If the prosecution story is accepted at its face value, it is a case where out of sudden

provocation, the alleged incident occurred. Appellant No.1 has already undergone more than 10 years of jail sentence. He has no criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, appellant No.1 prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State opposes the application supporting the impugned judgment with the submission that the judgment is based upon proper appreciation of the evidence placed on record and no exception can be taken thereto. Hence, prays for rejection of the application for suspension of sentence of appellant No.1.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced, touching merits of the case, but regard being had to the fact that appellant No.1 has suffered jail sentence since the date of judgment i.e. 16/01/2013 and for 423 days during trial i.e. more than 10 years having no criminal antecedents. The appeal is of the year 2013 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of this appeal in the near future. In the obtaining facts and circumstances, I.A. No.7808/2022 deserves to be and is hereby allowed.

Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant No.1- Paluwa Baghel @ Amarlal shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac and Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant No.1 is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 05/09/2022 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-

(i) the appellant No.1 will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars and orders issued by the Government of India and the State Government as well as the local administration from to time in the matter of maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus (COVID-19);

(ii) the concerned Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing the appellant No.1, the medical examination of the appellant be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptom of COVID-19 then the consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any further test required be undertaken immediately;

(iii) On violation of the conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of bail.

Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. It is made clear that the observations made on facts shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

                      (ROHIT ARYA)                            (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
                         JUDGE                                           JUDGE

             vc


VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
2022.07.08 18:10:24
+05'30'