Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sovran Singh vs State Of M.P. on 11 November, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 982 of 2010
(SOVRAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 11-11-2022
Shri Jagdeesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Dr. Ms. Anjali Gynani, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.16821/2022, fourth application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant no. 1 Sovran Singh. This
appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.11.2010 passed by first
Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind (M.P.) in S.T. No. 202/2009,
whereby the appellant has been convicted 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- The appellant so far has
undergone twelve and half years of jail sentence. Co-accused Batarfy alias Lal
Singh has already been extended benefit of suspension of jail sentence on
27.06.2022.
As per prosecution story, deceased Adiram was in cultivation of field
with Bahadur Singh. On question of apportion of crops appellants Sobaran
Singh and Batarfy came to his field and forced deceased Adiram to leave the
agricultural field. On his refusal, both the accused persons alleged to have
inflicted injuries by lathi. The deceased was badly injured. No sooner wife of
the deceased came on spot and raised alarm, accused persons fled away.
Tulsiram also reached the spot. Thereafter, he had taken him on tractor for
treatment to Gwalior. However, during treatment he breathed his last and passed
away at about 5:30 P.M on 13.05.2009. Based upon the aforesaid incident, FIR
was lodged at Crime Case No. 111/2009 in police station, Mehgaon, Bhind.
After completion of the investigation, challan was filed. Case was committed to
Sessions Court and the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on similar allegations co-
accused Batarfy has already been extended benefit of suspension of sentence.
Even otherwise, regard being had to the factual matrix in hand allegedly found
proved, it is a case at the most falling within the four corners of Section 304
part II of IPC for which minimum sentence is 10 years. Appellant has already
suffered jail incarceration twelve and half years. Hence, prays for suspension of
sentence.
Per contra, Ms. Gyanani supports the impugned judgment and submits that
the Trial Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record has
convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, no exception may
be taken to the impugned order in the matter of suspension of jail sentence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, regard being had to the fact
that the appellant suffered twelve and half years of jail incarceration, the
appellant has no criminal antecedents, and therefore, in the obtaining facts and
circumstances of the case, we find substantial force in the submission of
learned Counsel for the appellant, 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.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) with one local 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 16.01.2023, 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. stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
ar
ABDUR RAHMAN
2022.11.12
15:06:43 +05'30'
