Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Singh @ Sitaram vs State Of M.P. on 5 December, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 433 of 2013
(VIJAY SINGH @ SITARAM Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 05-12-2023
Shri A.K. Jain - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Shri R.B.S. Ghuraiya-Advocate for complainant.
Heard on IA No.19269 of 2023, third repeat application under Section
389 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of sole appellant - Vijay Singh alias Sitaram for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Present appellant stands convicted under Section 302 (2 counts) of IPC
and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (2 counts) with fine of Rs.10,000/-
(2 counts) with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 30/04/2013 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra,
District Gwalior (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.252/2012.
It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that sole appellant so far
has undergone jail sentence for 11 years, 09 months and 11 days as on
2/12/2023.
As per prosecution story, deceased Rajendra Fauji is the son of the uncle
of complainant Hoshiyar Singh and Kedar Singh is also the member of the same
family. The complainant received an information on his mobile phone from one
Kalyan Singh Solanki who is his maternal uncle that Vijay Singh alias Seetaram
(present appellant told him that he committed murder of deceased Rajendra
Fauji and Kedar Singh by causing gun shot injuries. On such information, Sunil
and Raghuveer went from village to the bank of the river where Rajendra Fauzi
was found lying dead in a pool of blood having suffered gunshot injuries on his
neck and Kedar Singh was grievously injured and was on the verge of death. On
call, 108 Ambulance came on spot but thereafter Kedar Singh passed away.
The aforesaid incident is alleged to have taken place due to previous animosity
between the two groups in the village. On such information, FIR was registered
and investigation was started. Upon collection of incriminating material and
recording of statements of witnesses, challan was filed. There are two
eyewitnesses namely Satyawati (PW-3) and Ramvaran Singh (PW-4). Sessions
Court upon critical evaluation of evidence placed on record has convicted the
present appellant- Vijay Singh alias Seetaram along with other co-accused
persons and sentenced as aforesaid.
Learned Counsel for appellant, while taking exception to the impugned
judgment submits that so far, present appellant has already undergone
incarceration of 11 years, 9 months and 11 days as on 2/12/2023 and with
remission, 16 years, 7 months and 26 days. Present appellant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated. The Sessions Court has not appreciated the
evidence placed on record in correct perspective. The impugned judgment
suffers from perversity of approach being based on surmises and conjectures.
That apart, co-convict appellant - Rishikesh in connected Criminal Appeal
No.328/2015 has been already extended the benefit of suspension of sentence
by this Court vide order dated 6/11/2023. It is further submitted that the appeal
being of 2015 is not likely to be decided in the near future. In any case, the
present appellant-Vijay Singh alias Sitaram since have already suffered such a
long period of jail sentence, he may be extended the benefit of suspension of
sentence.
Per contra, Shri Shukla, learned AAG, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State and Shri Ghuraiya, learned counsel for complainant submit
that it is a case of double murder and the trial Court after critical evaluation of
the evidence placed on record has rightly convicted the present appellant along
with other accused persons. It is further submitted that deceased Rajendra Fauji
suffered one gunshot injury on his neck with entry and exit wounds and
deceased Kedar Singh suffered two gunshot injuries on his jaw and hip. Both
the deceased persons have suffered three injuries and two were found to have
been caused by the gun found in possession of present appellant Vijay Singh
alias Sitaram. The third injuries has been caused by a country made pistol
seized from the spot at the instance of co-accused Rishikesh. It is further
submitted that present appellant and other co-accused persons are hardened
criminals and due to old rivalry, with common intention, committed double
murder. The prosecution story is supported by the ocular evidence of
eyewitnesses namely Satyawati (PW-3) and Ramvaran Singh (PW-4). Hence,
Vijay Singh alias Sitaram does not deserve to be extended the benefit of
suspension of sentence and enlargement of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court finds
substantial force in the submission of learned counsel for respondent/State and
is not inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to the present appellant on merits; however, regard being had to the only fact
that present appellant so far has already undergone incarceration of 11 years, 9
months and 11 days as on 2/12/2023 coupled with the fact that the appeal
which is of the year 2013 is not likely to be decided in the near future, we are of
the view that present appellant is entitled to the benefit of suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No.19269/2023 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of sole appellant-Vijay Singh alias Sitaram shall remain
suspended and he shall be released on bail, subject to verification of amount of
fine being deposited and 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. The appellant is directed to
appear before the Registry of this Court first on 12/02/2024 and on other
subsequent dates as may be fixed by Office in this behalf.
Apart from marking presence before the Registry, present appellant shall
also mark his presence on two days in a week in the concerned Police Station
till final disposal of the instant appeal.
If present appellant is found to have indulged in any criminal activity, the
complainant as well as respondent/State shall be at liberty to move this Court
for cancellation of his suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
