Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramvaran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1043 of 2016
(RAMVARAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 28-03-2022
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel with Shri V.K. Agarwal, Advocate
for appellants.
Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A.No.1130/2020, second application preferred under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and granted of bail on behalf of
appellant No.4-Pan Singh Baghele. First application was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 05.04.2019.
The appellant stood convicted under Section 364\34 IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for ten years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and under Section 302/34 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with
default stipulations.
As per prosecution case, there was a dispute between the appellant and
deceased Rajendra over financial matters and at about 05.30 pm on 21.11.2013,
appellant-Pan Singh Baghele and other co-accused persons namely Babu Baghele,
Jagdish Baghele and Ramvaran Baghele came to the house of the deceased and
took him away for election campaigning. In the night, deceased-Rajendra did not
return home, therefore, on 22.11.2013 i.e. the very next day, at about 8:00 am,
brother of deceased-Ram Singh came to the house of deceased and informed to
his wife that deceased has heard that appellant-Pan Singh and other co-accused
persons have caused homicidal death of deceased-Rajendra. Thereafter, they went
near the river lake area of Phulonda Village, where they found that body of
deceased-Rajendra was lying and there was an incised wound on his head.
Accordingly, the case has been registered against the appellant and other co-
accused persons. It is a case of circumstantial evidence.
The Sessions Judge upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on
record convicted all accused persons for offences under Section 302/34 of IPC
and sentenced life imprisonment. Shri Sharma, senior counsel for appellant at the
first instance submits that appellants No.1 to 3 have already been granted benefit of
suspension of sentence on 08.02.2019. His case is no different from that of others.
Appellant has already suffered jail incarceration for about 7 years. The only
incriminating material allegedly found against the appellant is that of recovery of an
axe with blood stains of human blood. Such recovery, as a matter of fact, is
vulnerable in many ways viz. complainant-Ramrati (PW/1) in her deposition has
stated that while seeing her husband's body lying near river lake area, the broken
axe was there, whereas, as per seizure memo (Ex. P/5), the same axe is alleged to
have been seized at the instance of the appellant after one month of the incident. As
such the recovery of axe allegedly at the instance of appellant itself is open to
serious doubt as discussed in para 63 of the judgment. Under such circumstances,
learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail.
Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the State while supporting impugned
judgment, submits that appellant's case is distinguishable from that of other
accused persons viz. there was a dispute of appellant with the deceased over
financial matters. As such there is element of mens ria to cause homicidal death of
deceased Rajendra. That apart, the factum of recovery of axe prima facie is
sufficient to deny suspension of sentence of appellant. Albeit, the contention
thereto may be looked into during final hearing. Appellant has been convicted for
Life Imprisonment and only 7 years have been served by him, hence no case is
made out for suspension of sentence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from
commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the case,
however regard being had to the fact that appellant has suffered jail incarceration
for 7 years with no criminal antecedents and prima facie the case of the appellant
is similar to the remaining appellants who have been granted suspension of
sentence except the recovery of axe, which shall be looked into at the time of final
hearing, appeal is of the year 2016 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the
appeal in the near future, in the obtaining facts and circumstances discussed above,
this Court is of the considered view that sentence awarded to the appellant may be
suspended pending disposal of the appeal.
Consequently, I.A. No. 1130/2020 deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant-Pan Singh
Baghel 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 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 on 29/04/2022 and on other
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-
( i) 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 symptoms of COVID-
19, then the consequential follow up action or any further test required be
undertaken immediately. If not, the appellant shall be released on bail in terms of
the conditions imposed in this order ;
(ii) violation of conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the I.A. No. 1130/2020 stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
(LJ*)
LOKENDRA JAIN
2022.03.29
11:03:38 +05'30'
