Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khalak Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1211 of 2020
(KHALAK LODHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
CRA No. 1310 of 2020
(JAIPAL SINGH @ NEPAL SINGH & OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 03-02-2023
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the appellant Khalak Lodhi (CRA
No.1211 of 2020) and appellant Jaipal Singh @ Nepal Singh (CRA
No.1310 of 2020).
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.11260 of 2022, an application under Section 389(1) of
the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Khalak
Lodhi and I.A.No.16693 of 2022 & I.A.No.11071 of 2022 for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1 Jaipal Singh @ Nepal Singh, arising
out of judgment dated 27/01/2020 delivered in S.T. No.36/2013 by the learned
II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar District Chhatarpur (MP).
The appellants Khalak Lodhi and Jaipal Singh @ Nepal Singh have been
convicted under Sections 302 r/w 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and under Section 148 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants by taking this Court to the prosecution
story submits that on 04/03/2012 Kashiram Lodhi and Gokul were sitting in a
hut in the agricultural field of Gokul. Heerabai, Parvati and Ramesh Lodhi were
also present there. Heerabai was cooking food. At around 9:00 P.M. when
Kashiram was about to leave the place towards the agricultural field, the
Signature Not Verified
residents of village Chachi Samera namely Mahipal Singh, Jaipal Singh, Rampal
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
2/4/2023 11:42:44 AM
Singh, Satendra Singh, Mulu Lodhi, Kutu Lodhi and residents of village
Magwanasher namely Pancham Lodhi, Nanhebhai Lodhi, Khalak Lodhi, Mohan
Lodhi, Ramsingh Lodhi and resident of village Jaitpur namely Jaipal Singh
reached the said hut and Mahipal Singh called Gokul Lodhi to come out from
the hut. Soon Gokul Lodhi came out, Mahipal told him that he prefers various
complaints and therefore, he should be killed. Satendra Singh assaulted Gokul
by means of an axe. Ram Singh fired by using 12 bore country made gun.
Other persons used lathi, Katarna and gun. Ramesh who was standing 10-15
steps away, identified the assailants with the help of torch light. Gokul sustained
various injuries and while taking to the hospital he had died.
Shri Kochar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that Ramesh
Lodhi (PW-1) is an eye-witness. He deposed that when police reached the
scene of crime, Gokul was alive and was speaking in a very low pitch. Police
did not take his statement. Ramesh Lodhi (PW-1) stated that he had seen the
incident in a torch light but no torch was recovered. His cross-examination
shows that he reached the place of incident after 15-20 minutes. The police
suggested the name of the persons with whom he had animosity, however he
said that some unknown persons have attacked Gullu.
Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that Ramesh Lodhi
(PW-1) could not be cross-examined on behalf of Jaipal Singh @ Nepal Singh
because he died before he could have been cross-examined on behalf of Nepal
Singh which is evident from para-14 of the impugned judgment.
Parvati (PW-2) daughter of Gokul and Heerabai (PW-3) widow of
deceased described different weapons which were allegedly used by assailants.
By placing reliance on AIR 1976 SC 951 Nachhattar Singh vs. State of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
2/4/2023 11:42:44 AM
Punjab, (2019) 2 SCC 513 Mohd. Akhtar alias Kari and others vs. State
of Bihar and another, (2016) 10 SCC 220 Mahavir Singh vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590 State of A.P. vs. Punati
Ramulu and others, it is urged that when names of weapons were taken in
specific, the discrepancy shown in the statement certainly causes a dent on the
prosecution story. Only injury No. 13 is a fire arms injury. Thus, ocular
evidence is not supported by medical evidence which is clear from the
statement of Dr. L. L. Ahirwar (PW-5).
Kashiram (PW-9) turned hostile. FSL report was not put to specific
question under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the Court below has erred in
convicting the appellants.
Prayer is opposed by Shri Arvind Singh, learned Government Advocate
by taking aid of various depositions and findings.
Prima facie, we are of the view that when multiple persons attacked
somebody with multiple weapons, it is not possible to show the nature of
weapon used by each of the assailants. The Court below has considered the
judgment of Supreme Court in Annareddy Sambasivva Reddy vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2661, in this regard.
Considering the eye-witness account and nature of crime, at this stage, no
case is made out for suspension of sentence to the appellants Khalak Lodhi and
Jaipal Singh @ Nepal Singh.
Accordingly, I.A.Nos. 11260/2022, 16693/2022and 11071/2022 are
dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
2/4/2023 11:42:44 AM
manju
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
2/4/2023 11:42:44 AM
