Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar And Raju Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 55 of 2016
(RAJKUMAR AND RAJU BAGHEL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-03-2022
Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Rohit Sharma for
appellant No.4 Shankar Baghel is heard on I.A.No.2597/2022.
Shri K.S.Jha, leaned counsel for appellant No.1 Rajkumar @ Raju
Baghel is heard on I.A.No.2684/2022.
Shri S.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Vishal Daniel, learned counsel for objector.
The appellant No.4 Shankar Baghel has been convicted and sentenced
under Section 323 of IPC to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.1000/-,
under Section 324 of IPC to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/-,
Section 302/34 of IPC to undergo RI for Life with fine of Rs.50,000/-, with
default stipulations.
The appellant No.1 Rajkumar has been convicted and sentenced under
Section 294 of IPC to undergo RI for three months, Section 302/34 of IPC to
undergo RI for Life and fine of Rs.50,000/-, under Section 323 of IPC (two
count) to undergo RI for (1-1) year with fine of Rs.1000-1000/-, Section
324/34 of IPC to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- and under
Section 506 of IPC to undergo R.I. for one year, with default stipulation.
Shri Datt, learned senior counsel for the appellant while arguing for
appellant No.4 Shankar submits that he remained in actual custody of more
than 6 years 8 months whereas Shri Jha informs that appellant No.1 Rajkumar
remained in actual custody of more than 8 years 10 months.
It is common ground taken by learned counsel for these appellants is that
as per prosecution story, the incident had taken place in two spells. The main
accused is Santosh Baghel who is enlarged on bail by this Court vide order
dated 13/01/2022. He caused knife injury on the deceased which became
reason of his death. As per prosecution story, the present appellants did not
take part to that extent and allegation against appellant Rajkumar is that he
caught hold of the deceased. The allegation against appellant Shankar is that
he caught hold the deceased and assaulted Jatar Singh (PW-7) by means of a
knife. On principles of parity, learned counsel for these appellants prayed for
suspension of sentence.
The prayer is opposed by learned Government Advocate as well as
learned counsel for objector.
Learned Government Advocate submits that one of the reason for
suspending the jail sentence is the judgment of Supreme Court in Saudan
Singh Vs. State of U.P. Slp (Crl) 4633/2021. However, the said judgment
was subsequently distinguished by a Division Bench of this Court.
Shri Vishal Danial submits that the matter may be heard finally after
summer vacation.
In the factual backdrop of this case, we deem it proper to apply the
principles of parity and by taking into account the order dated 13/01/2022
whereby main accused has enlarged on bail, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of the appellants Shankar and Rajkumar @ Raju
Baghel on similar terms without expressing any opinion on merits of the case.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of aforesaid appellants is hereby suspended.
Accordingly, the I.A.No.2597/2022 and I.A.No.2684/2022 are allowed.
The execution of jail sentence of appellant No.1 Rajkumar @ Raju Baghel
and appellant No.4 Shankar be released on bail on their furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) each with one
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a
further direction to appear before the trial Court, Seoni on 22/07/2022 and on
such other dates as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard during the
pendency of this appeal.
Registry is directed to prepare the paper book.
C.C as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY
Date: 2022.03.14 11:52:59 IST
