Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Singh 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. 1384 of 2019
(ARVIND SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 12-04-2023
Shri Akhand Pratap Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani- Public Proseutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA. No.6201 of 2023, which is third repeat application under
Section 389(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail
moved on behalf of appellant No.2- Mahendra.
First and second applications for suspension of sentence filed on behalf
of the appellant were dismissed and dismissed as withdrawn by orders dated
30.06.2020 and 25.02.2022 respectively.
Appellant No.2-Mahendra along with other accused persons stood
convicted under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years' RI
with fine of Rs.500/-; under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-; and under Section 307/149 of IPC and
sentenced to ten years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulations vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2019 passed by IV
Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.289/2015.
A s per prosecution story, in the background of rivalry between
complainant party and accused persons, it is alleged that a fight took place
between complainant Gyan Singh and Raja on 14.07.2015 at about 10:00 PM.
While complainant Gyan Singh with his brothers Raghuvir and Sonu were
standing at the market at 12.30 in night, Phool Singh, Banti, Ajab Lodha, Monu
Meena, Jeetu @ Jitendra , Mahendra Bana (present appellant), Arvind Bana and
Manmohan came with a common intention to cause grievous hurt to the
complainant and his brothers. On exhortation of Phool Singh, all the three,
namely, Phool Singh, Banti and Monu armed with Katta fired gunshot injuries
causing serious wounds on the chest and body of deceased Raghuvir. Blood
started oozing out. Thereafter, Banti had also thrown big stone on the face of
the deceased Raghuvir. Eventually, Raghuvir died homicidal death owing to the
aforesaid injuries including gunshot injuries. On an FIR so lodged investigation
started. Upon evaluation of incriminating material, Challan was filed and case
was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court, upon
critical evaluation of the evidence available on record has convicted and
sentenced the appellants along with other co-accused persons, as referred
above.
Learned counsel for appellant No.2- Mahendra inter alia submits that the
impugned judgment suffers from patent perversity of approach as relevant
evidence has been ignored and the judgment is based on surmises and
conjectures. Learned counsel while referring to the depositions of eye-witnesses
/ injured witnesses, namely, Gyan Singh (PW-2) and Sonu (PW-4), submits that
there is no act much less overt act attributed to appellant No.2 - Mahendra
unlike Phool Singh, Banti, Monu and Arvind, who are alleged to be armed with
Katta and Farsi and fired gunshot injuries on the body of deceased Raghuvir,
which led to his homicidal death. Present Appellant has already suffered jail
incarceration of more than four years and six months. The appeal is of the year
2019 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of this appeal in the near future.
Hence, learned counsel for appellant No.2 - Mahendra prays for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Moreso, learned counsel for appellant No.2- Mahendra seeks parity with
the order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court on 31.03.2023
extending benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.3
Jeetu @ Jitendra.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting t h e judgment
impugned, submits that the present appellant has been convicted with the aid of
Section 149 of IPC. Injured witnesses have clearly deposed about the presence
of present appellant on spot along with main accused persons. Besides, it has
also come in their evidence that the present appellant armed with Lathi had
inflicted injuries not only to the deceased, but also to injured Sonu. Therefore,
no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting on rival contentions touching merits of the case, but regard
being had to the obtaining facts and circumstances and that the present
appellant has already undergone four years and six months of jail sentence as on
date, in our opinion, present appellant is entitled to extend the benefit of
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant No.2-
Mahendra shall remain suspended during pendency of present appeal and he
shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in 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 No.2- Mahendra is
directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 12/06/2023 and on
other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, the IA. No.6201 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed
of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of disposal of the
instant application for suspension of sentence and shall have no bearing on the
merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Abhi
Digitally signed by
ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI
Date: 2023.04.12
17:53:12 +05'30'
