Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramprakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 August, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2785 of 2018
(RAMPRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 23-08-2023
Shri Rajiv Sharma and Shri Hemant Singh Rana- Advocates for
appellant No.3.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani- Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.
Per Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal:-
Heard on IA.No.5728 of 2023, second application u/Sec. 389 of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant No.3 Prem Kishore. First suspension application was dismissed as
withdrawn.
Vide judgment dated 1st of March, 2018 passed by First Additional
Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial
No.04 of 2017, present appellant has been convicted under Section 302/149 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-; five
years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 326/149 of IPC (for causing
injury to Kaveshwari), three years RI with fine of Rs.500/- under Section
324/149 of IPC (for causing injury to Balveer) and one year RI with fine of
Rs.500/- under Section 325 of IPC (for causing injury to Kaveshwari) and six
months RI with fine of Rs.500/- ( on three counts) under Section 323/148 of
IPC (for causing injuries to Kaveshwari, Balveer and Ramgopal) with default
stipulations. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
In brief, prosecution case is that on 25-10-2016 at around 08:30 am in
village Ridauli Ke Bohre Ka Pura, complainant Ramgopal (PW4) was cutting
crops of bajra in the field near his house. When his granddaughter i.e. Sikha,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 24-08-2023
04:52:13 AM
daughter of Balveer came and told him that her sister Shivani was kept locked in
house by accused Ramprakash. Then, Ramgopal and his son Balveer (PW1)
went to the house of accused Ramprakash and asked him as to why Shivani
was kept locked in his house and told to bring her out. Thereafter, accused
Shivsantosh armed with axe and other co-accused armed with lathi came and
threatened him and thereafter accused persons committed marpeet with Balveer
and Shivani. Accused Shivsantosh inflicted an axe blow on the head of Shivani
due to which she fell on the ground. The wife of Ramgopal Kaveshwari (PW2)
when came for rescue, all accused persons committed marpeet with
Kaveshwari, Balveer and Ramgopal. Puspa (PW3) is the witness of the incident
who had gone to the place of occurrence for intervening in the matter. Someone
from the village called 100 dial number on which the police reached the spot
and took injured Shivani, Ramgopal, Balveer and Kaveshwari to District
Hospital Bhind. Shivani was declared dead by the doctor. On the same day
itself, a dehati nalishi was recorded by SI Ambar Singh Sikarwar (PW10) on the
basis of oral information given by Ramgopal at about 12:10 pm which is
marked as Ex.P1. Postmortem of deceased Shivani was conducted. Statements
of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation and other
formalities, charge sheet was filed. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court
convicted and sentenced the present appellant for the offences as mentioned
above.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that deceased
Shivani used to come freely to the house of accused and right from the very
beginning there was a love affair with a boy by deceased Shivani due to which
on the fateful day, first deceased Shivani was beaten mercilessly by her parents
whereby she came to house of accused to save herself and this fact is clear
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 24-08-2023
04:52:13 AM
from the evidence of IO who found blood from the house of deceased. The
present appellant has not caused any injury to deceased Shivani due to which
she died. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses. The trial Court has wrongly convicted and sentenced the
present appellant. It is further contended that during trial, the present appellant
was on bail and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. The present
appellant has already served near about five and half years of incarceration.
This appeal is of the year 2018 and its final outcome will take some time.
Hence, prayed for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed application and
prayed for its rejection.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, but
without commenting upon merits of the case, aforesaid IA deserves to be and is
hereby allowed and it is directed that jail sentence of present appellant will
remain under suspension subject to verification that amount of fine has been
deposited, on his furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of concerned Trial Court for appearance before the Principal Registrar of this
Court on 18th December, 2023 and on such further dates as may be fixed by
the office in this regard till disposal of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 24-08-2023
04:52:13 AM
