Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8172 of 2022
(SHUBHAM PATEL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 08-12-2023
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate
for the appellant No.1 Shubham Patel.
Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Shiv Kumar Patel - Advocate for the objector.
Heard on I.A. No.28521 of 2023, an application under Section 389(1)
o f the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1
Shubham Patel arising out of judgment dated 08/09/2022 delivered in S.T.
No.215/2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur (MP).
The appellant No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five months with fine
of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.
Learned senior counsel for this appellant submits that this Court was
kind enough to permit the appellant to withdraw I.A.No.17384 of 2022 on
29/11/2022 with the liberty to renew it after one year from that day. The
appellant remained in custody for quite some time. Final hearing of this appeal
is not possible in near future.
As per prosecution story, a sudden quarrel had taken place in which
appellant allegedly caused injuries to the victim by means of a rod. By taking
this Court to the language employed in Section 326 of IPC, learned senior
counsel submits that the offence allegedly committed by using an iron rod will
not fall within the ambit of Section 326 of IPC.
Sounding a contra note, learned Government Advocate and learned
counsel for objector opposed the prayer and have drawn the attention of this
Court on the number and nature of injuries. The Court below in para-12 of the
judgment has given the finding regarding injuries which reads as under :-
"(a) An intercondylar and punctured wound in the
femur bone of the right thigh.
(b) Slippery hurt in the right arm.
(c) A lateral condylar fracture in the upper part of the
tibia bone of the injured left leg.
(d) A fracture in the radius bone of the wrist.
(e) A fracture in the second metacarpal bone of the left
hand.
(f) Fracture in the lower part of the third and fourth
metacarpal bone of the left hand and had two stitches.
(g) Two stitches in the lower part of the left hand.
(h) A fracture in jaw."
In this view of the matter, they opposed the prayer and urged that the
injuries caused by rod indeed covered by Section 326 of the IPC.
The appellant remained in custody for a small period and not completed
half of the actual sentence. The most of the injuries mentioned hereinabove are
grievous in nature. Prima facie, at this stage no case is made out for suspension
of sentence. In 2017 SCC OnLine MP 240 Pramod Kumar Choudhary v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court opined that 'but iron rod may be
termed as an instrument which rendered death probable, and it can be
termed a weapon of offence for causing death.' This finding is given while
examining the purview of Section 326 of IPC.
Thus, without expressing any conclusive opinion on merits of the case, at
this stage, this Court is not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of the present
appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.No.28521 of 2023 is dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
manju
