Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veeran @ Virendra Maina vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 3194 of 2019
(VEERAN @ VIRENDRA MAINA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 14-06-2022
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel with Shri V.K. Agrawal,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent-State.
Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for complainant.
Heard on I.A. No. 1335/2020, first application under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant-Veeran alias Virendra Maina seeking
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant along with other co-accused persons stood convicted under
Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine
of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 13/03/2019 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge Ganj
Basoda, District-Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.211/2016.
Appellant-Veeran alias Virendra Maina so far has undergone jail
incarceration for over 6 years as he is custody since 29/04/2016.
As per prosecution story, while Babulal (PW/2) and Ramkaran (PW/5)
were driving a motorcycle and going towards Beejh, to their dismay, a naked
burnt person was coming from the direction of Beejh Bus Stand screaming for
help. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Raju S/o Kamal Singh R/o of
Goriya Kheda. Thereafter, Babulal (PW/2) talked to Kamal Singh about the
condition of the deceased Raju. Raju, the deceased is alleged to have disclosed
the name of Nannulal, Veerendra, Vinay, Pappu & Vishal Singh alleging that
they had set him on fire. Babulal (PW/2) tried to extinguish fire providing him a
towel. Thereafter, an 108 Number Ambulance was called by him. Manoj, a
driver (PW/9) had taken the deceased Raju to District Hospital Vidisha.
Thereafter, his brother Tophan Singh (PW/15) was also informed on mobile.
Accordingly, case has been registered.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks indulgence for suspension of
sentence primarily seeking parity with co-accused Nannulal and to some extent
co-accused Vinay who have been extended benefit of suspension of sentence
by this Court vide orders dated 12/06/2020 and 24/01/2020 respectively in
connected Cr.A. No.2832/2019. Referring to Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P15) and dying
declaration (Ex.P7), learned senior counsel for appellant submits that though it
is alleged that Vinay, Virendra, Vishal Singh & Pappu had caught hold of him,
Nannulal had poured Diesel by container on him and the present appellant
Veeran alias Virendra set him ablaze by lighting a match stick, however, the
story so narrated in dying declaration (Ex.P/7) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P15) and
also disclose to Babulal (PW/2) could not have been said to be found proved
as Babulal (PW/2) has turned hostile and did not support the story of
prosecution. That apart, there is a apparent contradiction in the description of
the incidence in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P15) as well as dying declaration (Ex.P7).
According to him in dying declaration (Ex.P7) recorded on the same day i.e. on
30/01/2016 at about 11:15 pm, it is no specific act attributed to any of the
accused persons. Instead, general statement had been made that all five accused
persons had set him ablaze. However, in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P15) recorded on
the same day i.e. on 30/01/2016 at about 11:30 pm, specific act is attributed as
explained above that is Vinay, Virendra, Pappu and Vishal Singh had caught
hold of him, Nannulal had poured Diesel and the present appellant-Veeran alias
Virendra had set him ablaze. This apparent contradiction suggests that there is a
improvement in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P15) with no corroborative evidence on
record. In any case, appellant has already suffered jail incarceration for more
than 6 years. He is sole bread earner of the family. He has no criminal
antecedents. Besides, the appeal is of the year 2019 and there is no likelihood of
early hearing of the appeal. Under such circumstances, learned counsel prays
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Per contra, S hri Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent-State and Shri Amit Lahoti learned counsel for objector vehementrly
apposed the application with submissions that there is no contradiction in the
Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P15) and the dying declaration (Ex.P7) as all the five persons
have been named in both the statements of the deceased Raju. The Dying
declaration by itself is sufficient for maintaining the sentence awarded by the
trial Court. Appellant can not claim parity with co-accused Nannulal in particular
as overt act attributed to him is that of pouring of the diesel on him whereas
against the present appellant it is alleged that he had set him ablaze. Besides, the
76 years of age of co-accused Nannulal weigh heavily by the coordinate Bench
while suspending sentence on 12/06/2020. Moreso, no parity can be claimed
with co-accused Vinay as the overt act attributed to both of them are different
as explained above. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for State
as well as objector prays for dismissal of the application for suspension of
sentence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting on rival contentions touching merits of the case, but regard
being had to the fact that appellant has already undergone jail sentence for over
6 years having no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood of early hearing
of this appeal in the near future, therefore, in the obtaining facts and
circumstances where 2 out of 5 accused persons have been extended benefit of
suspension of sentence though allegedly involved together in the said crime, this
Court hereby is inclined to allow the instant applicantion (I.A.No.1335/2020)
suspending sentence of appellant -Veeran @ Virendra.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant-Veeran
alias Virendra Maina shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court. The appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court
first on 18/07/2022 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this
behalf with following further conditions:-
(i) the appellant 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, 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.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
SUNEE Digitally signed by SUNEEL DUBEY
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
L
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=157244b0239a6fd662b29b00a11fc66a
5e160f585aa7a92425f380d476b32818,
pseudonym=046B231C591E29491F36ABD156E
BF3A713937186,
serialNumber=4009CAE962958E019ADDF04E87
DUBEY
EFD5C07FA5D0C38532D550F61B55401A275B8
C, cn=SUNEEL DUBEY
Date: 2022.06.15 13:28:13 -07'00'
