Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gambhir Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 December, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 708 of 2016
(GAMBHIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 14-12-2023
Shri Keshav Pathak -Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Rajeev Upadhyay - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard o n IA No.22005/23, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant no.2- Bhuralal.
Appellant No.2 - Bhuralal stands convicted under Section 302/34 of the
IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- in
default to suffer RI for 3 years; under section 307/34 of the IPC to undergo RI
for seven years with fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer RI for 2 years vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29/06/2016 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District- Guna (M.P.) in Sessions Trial
No.269 of 2014.
Appellant No.2 Bhuralal so far has undergone 9 years 4 months and 8
days of incarceration without remission and 12 years 10 months and 8 days of
incarceration with remission.
Prosecution story, as found proved, is that on 16/7/2014 complainant
Harjarilal Gurjar had gone along with his sons Jagdish Gurjar, Sagar Gurjar and
Jamunalal Gurjar to Village Kekdichak for cultivating his field at about 7.00 AM.
The appellants who were already present there armed with lathi, lohangi etc.
attacked the complainant and his sons while abusing filthily in which several
injuries were caused to Jagdish, Hajarilal, Sagar Singh and Jamnalal. Upon such
report, offence was registered at Crime No.308 for the offences punishable
under Section 307, 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. During
investigation, spot map was prepared and statements of witnesses were
recorded. The injured persons were referred for medical examination. On
17.7.2014 Jagdish died whereafter offences under Section 302 and 325 of IPC
were also added. Challan was filed in the court of JMFC, who committed the
case to the court of Session for trial. The Sessions Court upon critical
evaluation of the evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the
present appellant as referred above.
Learned counsel for appellants while taking exception to the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the Sessions Court
has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. There
are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution
witnesses. The evidence of so called eye witness Hajarilal (P.W.4), Hansraj
(P.W.2) and Jamnalal (P.W.3) is not reliable and being inconsistent on material
aspects. The conviction is based on the evidence of interested witnesses.
Appellant No.2 has already suffered actual incarceration of more than nine
years. This appeal is of the year 2016 and its final disposal is likely to take time.
On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the present appellant may be
extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail..
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State,
while supporting the judgment impugned, submits that no exception can be
taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail, regard being had
to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved against the present
appellant inasmuch as the overt act of causing lohangi blows on the head of
deceased Jagdish is attributed to the present appellant Bhuralal.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court 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 fact that present
appellant has already undergone the incarceration of more than nine years and
the present appeal being of the year 2016 is not likely to be decided early in the
near future, the present appellant is entitled to the benefit of suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, IA No.22005 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of appellant No.2 Bhuralal shall remain suspended during
pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to
verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on his 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 No.2 Bhuralal is directed to appear before the Registry of
this Court first on 14/2/2024 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in
this behalf.
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) (ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2023.12.14
18:04:52 +05'30'
