Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manohar @ Manoharsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 2207 of 2018
(MANOHAR @ MANOHARSINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 17-02-2023
Ms. Sharmila Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Mohammad Ibrahim - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
IA Nos. 5195/2022 and 12463/2022 applications for urgent hearing stand
disposed off.
Heard on I.A. No.12462/2022, which is second application under Section
389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.4 Badrilal S/o Dule Singh.
The present appellant along with three other appellants have been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 325/34, 323/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment along with
fine of Rs.1,000/-, three years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and one year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/-
respectively. With default clause to further undergo one year's, eight months'
and three months' rigorous imprisonment.
As per prosecution on 23.10.2015 at about 11:30, way of Manohar was
obstructed by Ramchandra, Asharam and Makhkhan because of their previous
enmity. Asharam pelted stone which hit on the head of Manohar, Makhkhan
caused injury was by stick and Ramsingh caused injury by way of kicks and
fists. When Manohar shouted, Shyam came to save him. Thereafter, all the
above three have assaulted him by kicks and fists and fled away from the spot.
A report was lodged at Police Station Shajapur registered at Crime
No.643/2015 under Sections 341, 323, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC. Asharam and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 17-02-2023
20:29:43
Makhkhan were tried and vide judgment dated 16.02.2018, they have been
convicted under Section 323/34 of the IPC. On the same day at 10:00 pm in
front of the house of Ramesh Jaiswal, a dispute arose due to parking of bullock
cart by appellants. These four appellants namely Manohar, Shyamlal,
Ramchandra and Badri assaulted Asharam and Ramlal for which F.I.R. was
lodged at Crime No.647/2015 under Section 323, 294, 324, 506, 34 of the IPC.
Later on, Ramlal died and accordingly, Section 302 of the IPC was also added.
All the four appellants were arrested and put to trial under Sections 302/34,
325/34, 323/34, 294 and 506 PartÂ" II of the IPC. The trial Court after
evaluating the evidence came on record, convicted the appellants under
Sections 302/34, 325/34 and 323/34 of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are omnibus
allegations against all the four accused persons. Monohar Lodged an F.I.R. at
Crime No.643/2015 at Crime No.643/2015 against Asharam and Ramlal and as
a counter blast, they lodged the present F.I.R. Ramchandra and his two sons
namely Makhkhan and Badri were having previous enmity with them. Ramlal fell
down from the bullock cart and sustained head injuries and a false case has
been registered against him. He died on 03.11.2015, whereas the incident took
place on 23.10.2015. She has referred to the statement of Asharam (P.W-2) and
as per his statement, Manohar caused injuries by way of saliya on the head of
Ramlal and other accused have assaulted by means of stick. As per the opinion
of Dr. S. Shivram (P.W-9), all the injuries caused on the head were caused by
one stroke and apart from that no other other injuries were found on the body
of the, therefore, this appellant is entitled for benefit of suspension of sentence.
During the trial, he was on bail and never misused the liberty granted to him.
This is an appeal of 2018 and there is no likelihood of early disposal of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 17-02-2023
20:29:43
appeal looking to the pendency of the cases.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State opposes the
application by submitting that application of suspension of sentence in respect
of appellant No.2Â" Shyamlal has already been rejected vide order dated
29.03.2019 and this appellant is having parity with him, therefore, he is not
entitled for suspension of jail sentence.
Keeping in view of the aforesaid grounds raised by learned counsel for
the parties and after perusal of the record, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of this appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No. 12462/2022
stands allowed.
The execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant No.4 €ÂÂ"
Badrilal is hereby suspended and it is ordered that the appellant be released on
bail upon his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court and subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already
deposited) with a further direction to appear before the concerned Trial Court
on 12.5.2023 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the concerned
trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal. The present appeal
has already been admitted.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 17-02-2023
20:29:43
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 17-02-2023
20:29:43
