Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naresh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 966 of 2017
(NARESH SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 24-04-2023
Shri Ankur Maheshwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri Anand Purohit - Advocate for the complainant.
Heard on IA. No.15894/2022, which is seventh repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail
moved on behalf of sole appellant.
Appellant along with others stood convicted under Section 302/149 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and
under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 Years with a fine
of Rs.2000/-, with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 3.6.2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind
in Sessions Case No.236/1998.
The appellant so far as has undergone 8 years 9 months 13 days' jail
sentence as on 18.4.2023 with remission.
As per prosecution story while the complainant Jal Singh was returning
his village from Bhind along with his father at Angadpura Haar, accused
persons, namely, Kammod Singh armed with single barrel 12 bore gun, Vinod
Singh 315 bore katta, Vishwanath Singh double barrel gun, Naresh Singh
(present appellant) with Farsa, Paan singh with 12 bore single barrel gun,
Ramautar armed with winchester gun, Vakil Singh with 315 bore mouser gun
were standing. Having seen these persons, deceased Bhogiram advised his son
that he should run away, otherwise those persons would kill him. Bhogiram also
said that after having talks with him, he would come back. While Jal Singh had
gone to a different route, accused Vishwanath Singh shouted at Bhogiram and
started picking up fight due to past enmity related to land dispute. Thereafter,
present appellant is alleged to have caught hold of Bhogiram and all the accused
persons started beating him black and blue with fists and kicks. As Bhogiram
tried to run away, all accused persons chased him. Kammod Singh is alleged to
have fired a gunshot hitting Bhotiram. Thereafter, Bishwanath Singh also fired a
gunshot causing gunshot injury. Thereafter, all accused persons started firing
indiscriminately. Bhogiram fell on field at a distant place. Overall, seven
gunshots were fired. On such incident, an FIR was lodged. Upon completion of
investigation, challan was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court
for trial. The Sessions Court, upon critical evaluation of the evidence available
on record and recording of statements, convicted and sentenced the present
appellant, as referred above.
Before adverting to the submissions advanced, it is relevant to observe
that Paan Singh who is alleged to be armed with rifle, Ramavtar and Vakeel
Singh who were alleged to be armed with 315 bore rifle have been extended the
benefit of suspension of sentence.
Shri Ankur Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant, while taking
exception to the impugned judgment, submits that there is no allegation against
the present appellant either being armed with a gun or having fired gunshot
causing injuries to the deceased or assaulting the deceased with fists and kicks.
The only allegation against him is that of holding the hands of the deceased. In
contrast thereto, in case of Paan Singh, Vakeel Singh and Ramavtar Singh, the
complainant Jal Singh had stated that all of them had started firing gunshots
including other persons. Therefore, appellant's case is on a stronger footing in
comparison to the aforesaid persons. Therefore, appellant deserves to be
extended the benefit of suspension of sentence.
Per contra, Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri
Anand Purohit, learned counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposed the
application with submission that specific overt act is attributed to the appellant
having caught hold of the hands of Bhogiram. Thereafter, all accused persons
had started hitting the deceased with kicks and fists. Therefore, it was a case of
premeditation of mind and common intention to cause homicidal death of the
deceased; hence, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of
sentence.
At this stage, Shri Maheshwari points out the evidence of independent
witness Brindavan (PW-6) to contend that the said witness who is also said to
be an eyewitness has not made any allegation against the appellant either that of
catching hold of the hands of the deceased or hitting him with kicks and fists.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though, this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions touching merits of the case as the
same shall be dealt with at the time of final hearing, however, in the obtaining
facts and circumstances of the case, appellant is held entitled for extending the
benefit of suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, IA. No.15894/2022 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of appellant 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 is directed to appear
before the Registry of this Court first on 23.6.2023 and on other subsequent
dates as may be fixed in this behalf 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 she is having any
symptom 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, IA. No.15894/2022 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
(alok)
ALOK KUMAR
2023.04.24
18:22:21 +05'30'
