Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ummi @ Omprakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7593 of 2021
(UMMI @ OMPRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-05-2022
Smt. Manjit P.S. Chuckal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ritwik Parashar, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
I.A. No.22167/2021, first application u/S.389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of
sentence moved on behalf of appellants is taken up and considered along with
reply of the State.
This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 22.11.2021 passed in
S . T. No.2000201/2013 by learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Katni,
District Katni (M.P.), whereby appellants have been convicted u/S.302/34 and
323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months (on two counts) with fine
of Rs.200/- on each count, respectively, with default stipulations.
At the very outset, learned counsel for appellants submits that she does
not wish to press the instant application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail so far as it relates to appellant No.1 - Ummi @ Omprakash and appellant
No.3 - Kaudi @ Ummed. Thus, the I.A. No.22167/2021 is dismissed, so far as
it relates to appellant Nos.1 and 3.
According to the case of prosecution, on 19-8-2013 at about 12 o'clock
in the midnight, complainant's brother - Suraj Singh went to the house of the
accused to recover his dues from appellant No.2. However, it led to a scuffle
Signature Not Verified
SAN wherein appellant Nos.2 and 3 hit Suraj with a stick and metallic rod
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Date: 2022.05.13 10:37:48 IST
respectively. When the complainant and the deceased attempted to intervene,
they were also assaulted by the accused. Appellant No.1 caused injuries to the
deceased with an iron rod.
Learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellant No.2, Chhotelal
Jhariya had no role to play, as far as the alleged offences are concerned,
inasmuch as only a wooden stick is said to be recovered from him. It is
submitted that there are two eye witnesses PW-03 and PW-16. It is strenuously
urged that PW-03 who was also an injured was found in an inebriated condition
by the doctor. Another eye witness PW-16 has not narrated that appellant No.2
inflicted any injury.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2 contending inter alia,
that there is not only the deceased but also injured persons, and looking to the
injuries which were found on the person of injured as well as deceased, as per
testimony of PW-13, appellant No.2 is not entitled for suspension of sentence,
inasmuch as he has attributed active role during the entire incident and hence,
the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail deserves to be rejected.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival
submissions raised at the Bar.
Perusal of records reveals that during course of fracas, the deceased -
Delan Singh was done to death and besides him Suraj Singh (PW-03) and Prem
Singh (PW-16) also sustained injuries, when they tried to intervene. Now, both
these witnesses are eye witnesses and on the basis of their testimonies, the
impugned judgment of conviction was delivered against the appellants.
PW-13, Dr. Anand Ahirwar in his testimony has stated that when injured
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Suraj Singh was brought to him, injuries on his person were found to be simple
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
in nature and there was smell of liquor/alcohol from his mouth. Perusal of para
Date: 2022.05.13 10:37:48 IST
3 of the testimony of PW-16, Prem Singh, does not transpire name of appellant
No.2 - Chhotelal.
Thus, without entering into the merits of the matter, this Court is inclined
to grant bail to appellant No.2 - Chhotelal Jhariya by way of suspension of
sentence. Hence, I.A. No.22167/2021, so far it relates to appellant No.2 is
concerned, is allowed.
It is directed that jail sentence of appellant No.2 - Chhotelal Jhariya
will remain under suspension, subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already
deposited, and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the
satisfaction of concerned available Magistrate for her appearance before
concerned available Magistrate on 28.06.2022 and on such further dates as
may be fixed in this regard which shall be of frequency not less than once a
year.
I n case, appellant No.2 is found absent on any date fixed by the
concerned available Magistrate, then concerned available Magistrate shall be
free to issue and execute warrant of arrest for securing his presence without first
referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept
informed.
Learned concerned available Magistrate and the prosecution are directed
to ensure following of Covid-19 precautionary protocol prescribed from time to
time by the Supreme Court, the Central Govt. as well as the State Govt. during
release, travel and residence of the appellant during period of suspension of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
sentence as a consequence of this order.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
CHATURVEDI
Date: 2022.05.13 10:37:48 IST
C.c. as per rules.
(SHEEL NAGU) (MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE JUDGE
ac
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Date: 2022.05.13 10:37:48 IST
