Chotelal Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8407 MP

                                                             1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                     CRA No. 4538 of 2020
                                    (CHOTELAL PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                      Dated : 24-06-2022
                            Shri Alok Vagrecha and Shri Kabeer Paul, learned counsel for the

                      appellants.
                            Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

Appellants have filed I.A No.12033/2021 under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence of appellant nos.1 & 2; Chotelal Prajapati and Badelal Prajapati.

Appellant nos.1 & 2; Chotelal Prajapati and Badelal Prajapati have been convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No.43/2016 vide its judgment dated 17.1.2020 convicting them under sections 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 148 of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo Life Imprisonment; RI for 7 years and R.I for 3 years along with fine of Rs.1000/-; Rs.1000/- on three counts and Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for appellants submitted that complainant were aggressor party. They came to the house of appellants and were cutting

bamboos. It is submitted that appellants stopped them from cutting bamboo. When complainant did not give an ear to appellants then they went to police authority and lodged a complaint. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to deposition of P.W-11 namely; Raj Bhan Yadav. In cross-examination said witness has specifically stated that Chhotelal Prajapati had come to Police

Signature SAN Not Chowki to make a complaint against Jamuna Prasad and Jitendra who were Verified

Digitally signed by forcefully cutting bamboo trees of appellants. It is further submitted that P.W-3 MONSI M SIMON Date: 2022.06.25 12:41:32 IST

Smt. Kusum Dwivedi in her deposition has also admitted that house of complainant is not near the house of appellants. His house is about half a kilometers away from the house of appellants and it was also admitted that there is no other house besides the house of appellants. Learned counsel for appellants also pointed out to deposition of P.W-13 R. D. Tripathi who is Investigation Officer in the case. Investigation Officer in para-14 has stated that he had prepared spot map Exhibit P-5 in which he had shown the house of appellants as well as the place where bamboo trees were planted. It has also been stated by him that incident has occurred beside the house of Chhotelal. On basis of said deposition of witnesses and evidence available on record,

learned counsel for appellants submitted that it was the complainant who had arrived at the house of appellants for assault. Appellants were not the aggressor and they have only acted in private defence. It is submitted that there was free fight between the parties. Appellants had also sustained injuries on their body. It is submitted that both the appellants had serious injuries on the body. It is also submitted that appellants may have exceeded the right of private defence but they were not the aggressor and they acted to save themselves and their property. Appellants are in jail since last 7 years. Considering the aforesaid circumstances of the case, sentences of appellants be suspended and they be enlarged on bail.

Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It is submitted by him that appellants were the aggressors. They had caused serious injuries on the opposite party. Opposite party was only doing defence. In these circumstances appellants do Signature SAN Not Verified not have right to private defence and application for suspension of sentence be Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2022.06.25 dismissed.

12:41:32 IST

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the deposition of Investigating Officer and witnesses who had shown the spot where the incident took place i.e besides the house of Chhotelal and Investigating Officer has also stated that bamboo trees belong to appellants. Appellants tried to take recourse to law by approaching the authorities but they could not get much help and, therefore, incident had occurred.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, application is allowed.

It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, execution of jail sentences of appellant nos.1 & 2; Chotelal Prajapati and Badelal Prajapati shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and they be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this court on 19.12.2022 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this regard.

List the case for final hearing in due course as per listing policy. CC as per rules.

                        (VISHAL DHAGAT)                                    (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                             JUDGE                                                JUDGE




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
MONSI M SIMON
Date: 2022.06.25
12:41:32 IST