Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imrat vs State Of M.P. on 28 March, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 93 of 2012
(IMRAT Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 28-03-2022
Shri A.K. Jain, Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla, Counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.2853/2022; first application under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the appellant-Imrat seeking suspension of sentence and
grant of bail. Appellant stands convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- vide judgment dated
16.09.2010.
Appellant is in custody since 22.02.2009 and as such he has suffered jail
incarceration for over 13 years.
As per prosecution story, the deceased Hari Singh and his wife complainant
Pana Bai was having dinner and at about 8:00 in the house. Narain Singh armed
with Farsi came to the house of deceased Hari Singh with Balmukund and under
false pretext called him out. The complainant Pana Bai her Son Dharam Singh
followed deceased Hari Singh. During this period in front of house of Balmukund
Imrat present appellant and one Sultan were standing. They shouted 'Mardalo Sale
Ko'. Thereafter Balmukund hit the deceased with stone and Narain gave two-three
blows of Farsa on the body of Hari Singh. Hari Singh fell down. Blood started
oozing out and on the spot deceased died. On raising alarm by the complainant,
Jagdeesh and Munshi came on the spot. Thereafter the appellant and others fled
away. There are seven eye witnesses, namely, Ratiram (PW/1), Munshi (PW/2),
Mohar Singh (PW/3), Pana Bai (PW/4), Kanchan Bai (PW/5), Dharam Singh
(PW/6), Jagdeesh (PW/7). An FIR was registered in Crime Case No. 63/2006
under Section 302/34 at Police Station Kumbhraj, Distt. Guna. Upon submission
of final report, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Upon critical
evaluation of evidence placed on record, the Trial Court has convicted the sole
appellant- Imrat for offence under Section 302 of IPC with the help of Section 34
of IPC.
Shri Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has
already suffered jail incarceration for over 13 years. As per allegations in the FIR,
the allegation against the appellant is that of exhortation. Neither the appellant had
called the deceased Hari Singh from his house nor he inflicted injuries on his body.
The eye witnesses have improved their statements during deposition in the Court
and attributed overt act to the appellant differently. Hence, no credence to such
allegation may be countenanced in the context of the complicity of the appellant in
the instant crime. The appeal is of the year, 2012. There is no likelihood of the
hearing of the appeal
Per contra, Shri Shukla supports the impugned judgment with submission
that the appellant was present on the spot and at his instance, the co-accused
persons had hit Hari Singh resulting into his death. Besides, there is an eye
witnesses account during Court deposition that the appellant has also hit the
deceased by Farsi, albeit he fairly submits that though in the FIR the allegation is
that of exhortation against the appellant whereas in the Court statement physical act
of assault was also attributed to him as stated above.
Heard.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court refrains from
commenting upon the rival contentions touching the merits of the case, however,
regard being had to the fact that the appellant is in custody since 22.02.2009; there
are no criminal antecedents; in the oblique facts and circumstances, looking to the
findings of the Court below, this Court is of the view that the application deserves
to be allowed. It is, accordingly, directed that execution order of jail sentence of
appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be
enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh 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) for appearance before the Registry of this Court on 30/04/2022,
and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard, with
following further conditions:
(i) 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 appellant, his medical examination
be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima
facie found that he is having any symptoms 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, I.A.No. 2853/2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
ar
ABDUR RAHMAN
2022.03.29
11:05:44 +05'30'
