Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suneel Sen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 128 of 2018
(SUNEEL SEN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 12-04-2023
Mr. Pawan Vijaywargiya - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
Heard on IA.No.460/2023, second application under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the appellant - Suneel Sen for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
Appellant stood convicted under Sections 302 / 34 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and
under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's RI along
with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 22/11/2017 passed in Special Case No.34/2012 by
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Datia (M.P.).
A s per prosecution story, on 27/10/2011 while deceased Udhamsingh
Jatav S/o Lakhan Jatav along with other companions of the village, namely,
Gayaprasad Jatav, Hariram Jatav, Komal Ahirwar, Amit Kumar Ahirwar,
Laxman Rajak etc. were travelling on a Tractor-trolly owned by one Deen Dayal
Sharma (PW-10), for darshan and offering prayer to Ratangarh Mata. Besides
them, ladies were also there. They started journey back at 05:00 PM on
28/10/2011. At about 09:00 PM while Tractor-trolly reached at railway crossing
of Datia, the villagers of the same village, namely, accused Rajeev Dubey,
Akhilesh Dubey, Chhotu Dubey and two others stopped the Tractor. Rajeev
Dubey with torch light started searching deceased Udhamsingh and caught hold
of him. He shouted at him having taken the exception of conduct of his father
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 13-Apr-23
11:07:35 AM
Lakhan who voted against him in the Panchayat elections and despite warning
he was ploughing the field of Ramji Dubey. At that time, these three named
accused persons and two others had dragged down the deceased Udhamsingh
from the Tractor and he was also beaten up. The father of the deceased,
Lakhan Jatav accompanied by other villagers on being apprised of the incident
by the villagers, lodged a complaint at Kotwali Datia on 29/10/2011. Thereafter,
on statement of complainant Lakhan Jatav, FIR at crime case No.422/2011
under Section 347 of IPC was registered against accused Rajeev Sharma,
Akhilesh Sharma, Chhotu Sharma and two other persons vide Ex.P/19.
Eventually, merg No.0/2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered by Police
Station Kotwali, Datia and thereafter merg No.63/2011 under Section 174
Cr.P.C. was registered by Police Station Kotwali, Datia. As per disclosure of
Gayaprasad Jatav (PW-2) and Hariram Jatav (PW-4), the present appellant was
apprehended. Thereafter, the dead-body of deceased Udhamsingh was
recovered after few days in decomposed condition. On such intimation,
investigation was started. After recording of statements of witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and collection of incriminating material, challan was filed.
Court below upon evaluation of evidence placed on record though has
acquitted Rajeev Dubey and Akhilesh Dubey (persons named in the FIR) as
evident from para 79 of the judgment, however, Court has convicted the Neeraj
Kashyap and appellant - Suneel Sen. Since Chhotu Dubey was minor, he was
tried by the Juvenile Board.
Mr. Pawan Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the appellant while taking
exception to the impugned judgment submits that the appellant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated. He has neither been named in the FIR nor in the
Signature Not Verified
statements of the eye-witnesses, namely, Gayaprasad Jatav (PW-2) and Hariram
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 13-Apr-23
11:07:35 AM
Jatav (PW-4) recorded under Section 161 CrPC. There was no TIP as well.
The justification of complicity of the appellant as discussed by the Trial Court
in paragraph 46 of the judgment suffers from patent perversity of approach in
as much as on presumption the name of the appellant is found to be involved in
the alleged crime. Appellant has already suffered jail incarceration for last 5
years. The appeal is of the year 2018 and there is no likelihood of early hearing
of the appeal. Hence, prays for suspension of jail sentence.
Moreso, learned counsel for appellant seeks parity with the order of
suspension of sentence passed by this Court in Cr.A.No.95/2018 on
29.07.2022 extending benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to co-
accused Neeraj Kashyap.
P e r contra, Ms. Gyanani while supporting the impugned judgment
though refers to paragraph 46 of the judgment but fairly submits that except the
statements of witnesses recorded during the trial, there is no other evidence
except ocular evidence on record involving the appellant in the case.
Upon hearing counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from
commenting upon the rival contentions touching merits of the case, regard being
had to the fact that the appellant is in jail custody since for last over five years,
prima facie as his name neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and no TIP was conducted, therefore, we
a r e of the view that the appellant deserves to be released on bail and
accordingly, jail sentence is suspended during pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant - Suneel Sen
shall remain suspended and he be released on bail subject to depositing the
amount of fine (if not already deposited) and on furnishing a personal bond in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 13-Apr-23
11:07:35 AM
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. Appellant is directed to
appear before the Registry of this Court first on 14.06.2023 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 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, appellant shall be released on bail in terms of
the conditions imposed in this order;
(ii) in case of violation of conditions, State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the I.A.No.460/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
It is made clear that the observations made on facts shall have no bearing
on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
bj/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 13-Apr-23
11:07:35 AM
