Gajendra Singh @ Bablu Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 13839 MP

                                      1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                             CRA No. 381 of 2022
          (GAJENDRA SINGH @ BABLU CHAUHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 27-10-2022
      Shri Rajiv Sharma, Counsel for the appellant.

      Shri Rajesh Shukla, Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No. 15057 of 2022 which is the first application filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C filed on behalf of appellant Gajendra Singh alias Bablu for grant of suspension of jail sentence. The appellant with other co- accused persons stands convicted for offences punishable under Section 148

and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer two years and life imprisonment, respectively. Appellant as per the record has so far undergone jail sentence for more than a year.

As per prosecution story, deceased Vinod S/o Ravindra was rushed to District Hospital, Bhind by Monu and Attey at late hours on 10.06.2009 for treatment. A Tahreer Ex. P/8 dated 10.06.2009 was prepared by Dr. K.K. Dixit intimating the concerned Police Station about deceased injured brought to the hospital for treatment. On immediate medical examination (Ex. D/3) prepared by Dr. K.K. Dixit (PW/3) indicated that appellant was brutally beaten by accused

persons. He had suffered four stab wounds on four vital parts of the body. On 10.06.2009, the statement of the deceased was recorded vide Ex. P/3 in presence of Monu and Atte by the concerned Police Officer. In the statement, he stated that appellant and co-accused Abhilkh had assaulted and caused injuries on his body. Due to fatal injuries and failing medical condition of the deceased, he was referred to J.A. Hospital, Gwalior on 10.06.2009. However, since there was no improvement in his medical condition, he was referred to

Safdarjanj Hospital New Delhi. He was operated in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 13.06.2009, but could not survive and breathed his last on 28.06.2009. Initially, FIR was lodged for offences under Sections 386/323, 324 and 149 of IPC. However, later on after homicidal death of the deceased offence under Section 396 of IPC was added.

The trial Judge upon evaluation of evidence placed on record though acquitted the accused for offence under Section 396 of IPC, but sentenced them for murder under Section 302/34 of IPC.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned judgment submits that the injuries allegedly caused by the appellant

on the body of the deceased were by the rear side of Desi Katta in his hand on the back of the deceased as well explicit from his own statement Ex. D/3. Dr. K.K. Dixit (PW/3) though has found four stab injuries, but no injuries found on his back by a hard and blunt object. Dr. Vijay Arora PW/12 who conducted the postmortem in para-12 has stated that cause of death is Septicemia due to infection. Under Such circumstances, appellant could not have been convicted for offence under Section 302 of of IPC. Hence, it is a case fit for suspension of sentence.

Per contra, Shri Rajesh Shukla, Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State has seriously opposed the application with submissions that complicity of the appellant in the alleged crime is beyond reasonable doubt as well evident from the statement of the deceased recorded on the date of the incident i.e. on 10.06.2009 vide Ex.P/3, besides his active participation in commission of the crime. Learned Counsel further submits that MLC report (Ex. P/7) suggests that the deceased had suffered multiple injuries on various parts of his body. Dr. Vijay Arora (PW/12) in his report indeed has stated the

cause of death is Septicemia but attributable to injuries no. 1 and 2 suffered by the deceased. Learned counsel also submits that while considering an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C, this Court may consider prima-facie case.

Upon reading of the evidence placed on record as well discussed by the trial judge the appellant, co-accused Abhilakh Singh and others had a common intention to cause grievous hurt to the deceased in furtherance of common object for extortion. There is a clear proximity of the death of the deceased with the injuries suffered by him caused by the accused persons. The cumulative effect of the injuries suffered by him has led to further complications resulting into his death. The death certificate Ex. P/19 clearly spells out that the cause of death "multiple organ dysfunction syndrome". Stab injury (jejunal perforation), acute lung injury.

Under such circumstances, the injuries as well discussed by the learned trial judge in paras 7 and 14 are based on critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record. Hence, no case is made out for suspension of sentence.

The evidence placed on record as well discussed by the trial Judge if juxtapositioned with the concept of gravity of the offence, intensity of the criminal act, common intention in furtherance of common object of accused persons and impact on society of the crime committed coupled with the fact

that the appellant has only suffered one year of jail sentence as against life sentence, no case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence.

Upon hearing counsel for the parties though this Court refrains from commenting on the rival contentions, but regard being had to the fact that appellant Gajendra alias Bablu is specifically named in the FIR, in the statement

of injured later on deceased Vinod (Ex. P/3) along with other accused persons armed with Katta and actively participated in causing injuries on the body of the deceased, proximity of the appellant in the alleged crime prima facie cannot be ruled out. Due to the injuries suffered by the deceased which led to further complications has resulted into his death. Therefore, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, this Court finds substantial force in the submission of Shri Shukla. Therefore, regard being had to the gravity of the offence, intensity of the criminal act on the part of the accused persons including appellant fatal injuries suffered by the deceased which led to his death, no case is made out for suspension of sentence at this stage.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 15057 of 2022 stands dismissed.

     (ROHIT ARYA)                               (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
        JUDGE                                            JUDGE

ar


          ABDUR RAHMAN
          2022.11.02
          10:46:40 +05'30'