Nathan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2425 MP

                                     1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                             CRA No. 9236 of 2022
              (NATHAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 10-02-2023
      Shri Anoop Nigam - learned counsel - for the appellants.

      Shri Sushant Tiwari - learned Public Prosecutor - for the
respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No. 20029/2022, first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant No.5-Chhote Rajju alias Surya Pratap and appellant No.9 Krishna Pratap.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 09.09.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 100036/2014, whereby the appellants No.5, 9 and other accused persons have been convicted under Section 147, 302/149 and 307/149 (2 counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's RI, Life Imprisonment and seven years' RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, 1000-1000/- respectively, with default stipulations.

As per prosecution story, over a land dispute in the background while Chandrapal and Arjun, brothers of complainant Rajesh were plowing the field

with tractor, accused persons armed with deadly weapons reached the spot. Accused Arvind uttered filthy abuses and threatened with dire consequences if Chandrapal and Arjun did not stop to plowing the field. Thereafter Arvind fired gunshot causing injury on the chest of deceased Chandrapal. Accused Charliraja also fired gunshot causing injury to right hand of the injured Arjun. Rajababu fired gunshot causing injury on the right shoulder of Arjun. Accused Balram fired gunshot causing injury to Chandrapal, as a result, he died on the

spot. Besides, other accused persons have been named including the appellants as present on the spot in furtherance of common intention and members of unlawful assembly. On registration of an FIR, investigation was completed and challan was filed. Case was committed for sessions trial. The Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of evidence placed on record has convicted the appellant alongwith eight accused persons for the offences and sentenced as aforesaid.

Shri Anoop Nigam, learned Counsel appearing for appellants while taking exception to the impugned judgment submits that learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate evidence on record in right perspective. Conviction of the

present appellants is based on surmises and conjectures and de hors evidence on record. According to him neither there was allegation of either being armed with any weapon much-less fire arm and or deadly weapon nor any act much- less overt act is attributed to the present appellants. The aforesaid fact be ascertain with the observation of the Sessions Court in para 71 of the judgment.

That apart, jail sentence of appellant No.1 Natthan Singh has already been suspended by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2022 and the case of appellants is on parity with that of appellant No.1 The appellants have no criminal antecedents. During trial they were on bail. The appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that execution of the jail sentence of appellant No.5 and 9 may be suspended and they may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, Shri Tiwari learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State while supporting the impugned judgment submits that presence of the appellants is proved beyond reasonable doubt as ocular evidence of eye witnesses has specifically mentioned about the same. However,

he fairly submits that there is no allegation that appellants either used firearm or caused any injury to the deceased or injured.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties though this Court refrains from commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, regard being had to the fact that the case of appellants is on parity with that of appellant No.1 Natthan Singh, therefore, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly, directed that execution order of jail sentence of appellant No.5-Chhote Rajju alias Surya Pratap and No.9 Krishna Pratap shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and they shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for appearance before the Trial Court Mungawali, District Ashok Nagar on 20.04.2023, and on further dates as may be directed by the same in that regard, with following further conditions:

(i) Appellants will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars and orders issued by the Government of India and the State Government as well as the local administration from to time in the matter of maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to avoid proliferation of Novel

Corona virus (COVID-19);

(ii) The concerned Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing appellant, his medical examination be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that they are having any symptoms of COVID-19, then the consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any further

test required be undertaken immediately.

(iii) On violation of the conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 20029/2022 stands allowed and disposed of. Record of the Court below be called for.

Certified copy as per rules.

      (ROHIT ARYA)                                                (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
         JUDGE                                                             JUDGE

Rks

 RAM KUMAR SHARMA
 2023.02.10 17:30:47
 +05'30'