Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2569 of 2012
(RAMSINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-04-2023
Shri Shreyas Pandit - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Public Prosecutor for the State.
I.A.No.2670 of 2023 is an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail on behalf of sole appellant-Ram Singh.
Appellant - Ram Singh has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine
of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment
passed by the Sessions Judge, District Panna in ST No.33 of 2012.
The case of the prosecution is that the sole appellant was living with his
mother. On 27.12.2012, he beat his mother very brutally. She started shouting.
When eye witnesses reached the house, the door was locked from inside. On
being questioned, the appellant refused to open the door. Thereafter, the
witnesses broke the back door of the house and entered into the house. On
entering, they saw the deceased lying there on the cot. Thereafter, the
investigation was taken up. On trial the accused was convicted and sentenced
for the offence as mentioned hereinabove. Thereafter, the instant appeal was
filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no reason for the
appellant to commit the murder of his own mother. That both the eyewitnesses
have partially turned hostile. Irrespective of the contentions on merits, he
submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh vs. The
State of U.P. and others vide order dated 05.10.2021 in SLP (Criminal)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 4/11/2023
6:49:05 PM
2
No.4633 of 2021 has come to the conclusion that if the accused has undergone
custody for at least 50% of the sentence awarded, the same can be considered
as a ground to enlarge the accused on bail.
However, on hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that there are
certain exceptions carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to apply the said
judgment. That admittedly the appellant is in custody for a period of 11 years
having suffered a sentence for life for the offence punishable under Section 302
of the IPC. The manner in which the offence has been committed also requires
to be taken into consideration as to whether it comes within the exception as
carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The accused is the son of the
deceased. The evidence of the doctor indicates that she was aged about 65
years and that she suffered eight injuries. That, lathi has been recovered from
the spot. Under these circumstances, when the appellant has gone to the extent
of causing fatal injuries on his mother, who is aged more than 65 years, we are
of the view that the same would come within the exceptions as carved out by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the question of releasing the appellant on
bail, in view of the period of custody undergone, would not arise for
consideration.
So far as the merits are concerned also, we find no good ground to
enlarge the appellant on bail.
I.A.No.2670 of 2023 is accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
anand
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 4/11/2023
6:49:05 PM
