Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramwaran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2058 of 2022
(RAMWARAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-12-2023
Shri Vivek Kumar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A.No.18105 of 2023, second repeat application under
Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of sole appellant - Ramwaran for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section
302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.500/-; under section 307/149, IPC to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of
Rs.500/- and under section 148, IPC to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of
Rs.200/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 15-02-2022 passed in Sessions Trial No. 59/2015.
Prosecution story, as found proved, is that on 24/10/2014 complainant
Beer Singh and his brother Kishorilal were returning on a Motorcycle to their
village from Village Jaura Khurd after attending a feast. The Motorcycle was
being driven by complainant while his brother Sobaran was riding pillion. As
they came in front of Maida factory, they found that Ramdeen, Premchand and
Ranveer were standing there and Premchand was having a Mouser pistol in his
hand. Being terrified, they sped towards Morena and as they reached near the
T-point situate at Morena Village, Pemchand fired from behind hitting his
brother on his back. At the T-point, they also saw Vishal, Ramwaran (present
appellant), Ratansingh, Balveer and Vinod who abused and shouted that they
would not be left alive. Thereafter Vishal fired from his country made pistol at
the complainant but it missed the target. All the miscreants were abusing
filthily. The incident was witnessed by Dhruv Singh and Bhura who were also
present at the spot. On the basis of aforesaid, FIR was registered. Upon
collection of incriminating material and recording of statements, challan was
filed and case was committed to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions
Court, after critical evaluation of the evidence on record, has convicted and
sentenced the present appellant, as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment, inter alia, submits that appellant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated. The conclusions drawn by the Court below are based on surmises
and conjectures. It is submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed to
the present appellant. The appellant has already undergone jail sentence of 01
years and 11 months. Moreso, he seeks parity with order dated 23/09/2023
passed in connected Criminal Appeal No.2440/2022 granting benefit of
suspension of sentence to similarly placed co-accused Vinod Kumar under
similar facts and circumstances. That apart, the appeal is of the year 2022 and
there is no likelihood of final disposal of this appeal in near future. Under such
circumstances, prayer is made for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
present appellant.
P e r contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State, opposes the
application supporting the impugned judgment with submission that the trial
Court after critical examination of the evidence placed on record, has
convicted the present appellant; hence, no exception can be taken in the matter
of grant of benefit of suspension of sentence.
DUBEY Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting on rival contentions touching the merits of the case, but
regard being had to the fact that the present appellant so far has undergone the
jail incarceration of 01 year and 11 months coupled with the fact similarly
placed co-accused Vinod Kumar in connected Criminal Appeal No.2440/2022
has already been extended the benefit of suspension of sentence vide order
dated 23/09/2023 under similar facts and circumstances and that appeal is of the
year 2022 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of this appeal in near future,
we are of the view that jail sentence of the appellant deserves to be suspended
and he be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of sole appellant -
Ramwaran shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac 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 16/01/2024 and
on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, the I.A. 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) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
