Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deewan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 5364 of 2018
(DEEWAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 02-03-2022
Shri R.V.S.Ghuraiya, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.8314/2021, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.3
Haricharan
Appellant No.3 - Haricharan along with other accused persons stood
convicted under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer two years' R.I., under
Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.5,000/-, under Section 326/149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 7 years' R.I.
with fine of Rs.2,000/- and under Section 506 (Part-II) of IPC and sentenced to
suffer one year's R.I. with default stipulations vide judgment dated 27.02.2013
passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, District Guna (M.P.) in
Sessions Trial No.182/2013.
Appellant No.3 - Haricharan is undergoing jail sentence from 05.05.2018 and
almost 9 years' period has passed.
As per prosecution story, deceased Samrathsingh, father of the complainant
Sundarlal Gurjar had objected to the movement of cattle of accused Gajrajsingh
causing destruction of standing crop of his field. Gajraj Singh had retaliated and
hurled filthy abuses. Thereafter Gajrajsingh, Banwari Gurjar, Haricharan Gurjar -
present appellant, Bhagwat Gurjar alleged to be armed with farsa had started hitting
Samrathsingh, the deceased. Bhagwat is alleged to have caused head injuries to the
deceased, who started bleeding profusely and thereafter died. Accordingly, case
has been registered.
Shri R.V.S.Ghuraiya, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
complainant Sundarlal in Dehati Nalishi had alleged that deceased Samrathsingh
was assaulted with farsa and lathis by Bhagwat, Gajraj Singh, Haricharan Gurjar
and Diwansingh and one Dhanna had assaulted him with farsa causing injuries on
his feet. After he had fallen down, Narayan Gurjar, Lalu, Hema and Dhanna had
assaulted the deceased by means of Kulhadi and farsa. However, in the final
report, the name of Dhanna, Narayan Singh, Lalu and Hema had been deleted as is
discussed in para 24 of the impugned judgment. Further learned counsel submits
that though in Dehati Nalish, it is alleged by the complainant (P.W.1) that Dhanna
had caused injuries on the feet of the complainant with farsa, whereas in his
deposition before the Court it is alleged that present appellant has caused same
injuries to the complainant. He has nowhere stated that the present appellant has
caused specific injury on the body of the deceased except omnibus allegations
against all the accused persons. Albeit, there is specific allegation against co-
accused Bhagwat, who is alleged to have caused farsa injury on the occipital
region of the deceased. As per Post Mortem Report (Ex.P/8), the cause of death is
head injury and excessive bleeding. Under such circumstances, the complicity of
the appellant No.3 - Haricharan in the context of injuries caused to the deceased is
highly suspicious. The appeal is of the year 2018 and there is no likelihood of early
hearing of the appeal. Appellant No.3 - Haricharan has already undergone nine
years of sentence. He has no criminal antecedents. In such circumstances, learned
counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.3 -
Haricharan.
Per contra, Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Dy.Advocate General appearing for
the respondent/State referring to the FIR, statement of the complainant (P.W.1)
and the medical evidence submits that the factum of causing injury by present
appellant on the leg of the deceased as stated in the FIR is well corroborated with
injuries No.5 and 6, as discussed in para 11 of the impugned judgment. As such, it
is well evident that the appellant No.3 - Haricharan has caused injury on the body
of the deceased though not on vital part. Hence, no exception can be taken to the
complicity of the appellant in the instant case.
Upon hearing learned counsel for parties, though this Court refrains from
commenting upon rival contention touching the merits of the case, however, regard
being had to the fact that appellant No.3 - Haricharan has been in custody for
more than nine years with no criminal record and in the obtaining facts and
circumstances, as the appeal is found to be arguable in nature and there is no
likelihood of early of the appeal in normal course as rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the appellant, appellant No.3- Haricharan is held entitled for
suspension of sentence.
Consequently, I.A.No.8314/2021 is hereby allowed and it is directed that the
jail sentence of the appellant No.3- Haricharan shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his 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 the trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not
already deposited). Appellant No.3- Haricharan is directed to mark his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 18.04.2022 and on other subsequent dates as
may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-
( i) t h e Appellant No.3- Haricharan 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 Appellant No.3- Haricharan be
conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that
she is having any symptoms of COVID-19, then the consequential
follow up action or any further test required be undertaken
immediately. If not, Appellant No.3- Haricharan shall be released on
bail in terms of the conditions imposed in this order.
Learned Dy.Advocate General is directed to send an e-copy of this order to
all the concerned including the concerned Station House Officer of the police
station for information and necessary action.
Accordingly, the IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2022.03.03
11:46:56 +05'30'
