Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shaitan Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 22 February, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 375 of 2015
(SHAITAN SINGH GURJAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.)
Dated : 22-02-2023
Shri Atul Gupta-Advocate for appellants.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani-Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
He a r d o n I.A.No.17308/2022 & I.A. No. 3689/2023, second
application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.1-Shaitan Singh Gurjar & appellant No.3-
Imrat Singh respectively.
Appellants stand convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 325/149 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under
section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year's RI with fine of
Rs.1,000/-, under Section 323/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 4 months'
R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-with default stipulations respectively vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 12/03/2015 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge to Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha (M.P.) in
S.T. No.138/2015.
As per prosecution story, complainant injured Parvat Singh S/o Bhopa
Singh aged about 20 years R/o Village Munimpur lodged a complaint at Police
Station Unarsikala on 11/10/2004 at about 2:30 p.m. against accused persons
and the same was registered at No.0/2004 under Section 147, 148, 149, 323 &
506 IPC initially. After registration of FIR, during investigation, statements of
the complainant and other injured persons were recorded. The injured persons
and the deceased Kishan S/o Gurumukhsingh were hospitalized at Hamidhia
Hospital Bhopal where Kishan died on 12/10/2004. Upon completion of
investigation, challan was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court
for trial.
The Sessions Judge upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on
record and statements recorded, convicted and sentenced appellants as referred
above.
Learned counsel for the appellants while taking exception to the
impugned judgment submits that Sessions Court has not appreciated the
evidence placed on record in correct perspective. The judgment suffers from
surmises and conjectures. However, he has not been able to point out the
perversity in the judgment. Nevertheless, learned counsel still argued for
suspension of sentence seeking parity with accused persons who have been
extended the benefit of suspension of sentence namely Gajadhar, Jamnalal,
Pahalwan Singh & Gangaram vide orders dated 14/02/2023, 12/05/2017 &
15/11/2016 respectively in connected Cr.A. No.291/2015, Balveer vide order
dated 1/3/2019 in this criminal appeal & Najam Singh vide order dated
21/04/2017 in connected Cr.A No.330/2015. It is alleged that pharsa was
recovered from appellant No.1-Shaitan Singh while one lathi was recovered
from appellant No.3-Imrat Singh. Besides, he also submitted that appellant
No.1-Shaitan Singh has undergone 9 years and 3 months of custody as on date
while appellant No.3-Imrat Singh has undergone 8 years 3 months of custody.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the
application supporting the impugned judgment with submission that there were
as many as 11 accused persons. Appellant No.1-Shaitan Singh was armed with
pharsa and appellant No.3-Imrat Singh was armed with lathi. The accused
persons named by the counsel for appellants have been extended the benefit of
suspension of sentence only because they were armed with lathi. The injury
No.23 explained by Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta (PW-6) in her testimony corresponds
to fatal injury on the head of the deceased of size 3 X 0.5 cms. In her cross-
examination, she has deposed that the nature of injury has been mentioned after
seeing the wound on opening the surgical stitches which were administered at
the time of first aid. Learned counsel further submits that said injury is caused
by pharsa which was with appellant No.1-Shaitan. The cause of death is head
injury. Therefore, case of appellant No.1 is distinguishable on facts from other
accused person. That apart, the injured witnesses in their ocular evidence has
specifically stated that appellant No.1-Shaitan was armed with pharsa and
caused injuries on the occipital region of the deceased Kishan. Under such
circumstances, as regards appellant No.1-Shaitan Singh, no parity can be
claimed with such appellants who were armed with lathi and have been extended
the benefit of suspension of sentence.
So far as appellant No.1-Shaitan Singh (I.A. No.17308/2022) is
concerned, this court has carefully perused the record of the Court below,
particularly, the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses namely Parvat Singh, the
complainant (PW-1), Machla Bai (PW-3), Bhopa (PW-7) and eye witnesses
namely Mahendra Singh (PW-4), Nekibai (PW-9) & Kesari Singh (PW-10) and
we are of the view that appellant No.1-Shaitan Singh can not be entitled to and
therefore, can not be granted benefit of suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, I.A. No.17308/2022 stands dismissed.
However, so far as appellant No.3-Imrat Singh (I.A. No.3689/2023)
is concerned, he was armed with lathi and therefore, maintaining parity with
Gajadhar Singh, Jamnalal, Pahalwan Singh, Gangaram Balveer & Najam
(Supra), this Court is inclined to suspend the jail sentence and grant bail to
appellant No.3-Imrat Singh.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3689/2023 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of appellant No.3-Imrat Singh 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. He is
directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 10/04/2023 and on
other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further
conditions:-
(i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing
appellant No.3-Imrat Singh, his medical examination be conducted
through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is
having any symptom of COVID-19, then the consequential follow
up action or any further test required be undertaken immediately. If
not, appellant No.3-Imrat Singh shall be released on bail in terms
of the conditions imposed in this order;
(ii) in case of violation of conditions, State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
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.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SUNEEL DUBEY
2023.02.24
11:18:27 -08'00'
(Dubey)
