Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 405 of 2016
(BABU SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 23-02-2023
Shri Rajmani Bansal - learned Advocate for the appellant.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani - learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State.
Heard on I.A. No.17180/2021, which is fourth application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant - Babu Singh. Earlier
three applications have been dismissed as withdrawn.
Appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 of the IPC and sentenced
to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and under Section 324 of
IPC and sentenced to suffer two years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default
stipulation, vide judgment dated 17/02/2016 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Special Court No.3 (Electricity Act) Gwalior in Sessions Trial
No.90/2014.
The appellant is in custody since 04.12.2013 and approximately more
than nine years period has passed.
As per prosecution story, the appellant and the complainant are resident
of village Gopi Ka Pura, Police Station Tighra, District Gwalior. On the fateful
day i.e. on 30.08.2013, in the afternoon at about 12:30, while Madho Singh, his
brother Bharat Singh and father Halke Singh, on the side of river were grazing
cattle, the appellant Babu Singh was also present there. Over a trivial issue,
heated exchange took place between appellant Babu Singh and the complainant
party followed by hurling of filthy abuses and assault. It is alleged that Babu
Singh enraged Madho Singh and in the sudden grave provocation, Babu Singh
had hit the deceased Halke on his head by farsa resulting into his homicidal
death. Upon completion of investigation, challan was filed. The case was
committed for sessions trial. The sessions court upon evaluation of evidence
placed on record has convicted the appellant and sentenced as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for appellant primarily submits that appellant has already
undergone 9 years plus jail incarceration. Appellant has no criminal antecedents.
The alleged incident itself suggests that due to sudden and grave provocation,
appellant is alleged to have caused the homicidal death of the deceased. It is a
case which may squarely fall within the four corners of Section 304 Part II of
IPC. The appeal is of the year 2016. There is no likelihood of early hearing of
appeal. Hence, prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, State counsel opposes the application while supporting the
impugned judgment with submission that there is a direct evidence of hitting the
deceased with farsa against the appellant and injury so caused has resulted into
homicidal death. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment in
the matter of suspension of sentence. However, she fairly submits that the
appellant so far has undergone 9 years plus jail incarceration.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, but regard being had to fact that appellant has suffered more than nine
years of jail incarceration and there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in
near future, hence, he is held entitled for suspension of jail sentence.
Consequently, the I.A. is hereby allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that
the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court subject to verification of factum regarding deposit of fine
amount.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court 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 the appellant, the medical examination of the
appellant be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is
prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of
COVID-19, then the consequential follow up action or any
further test required be undertaken immediately. If not,
appellant shall be released on bail in terms of the
conditions imposed in this order;
(ii) violation of conditions, State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that the observations made on facts shall have no bearing
on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aman
AMAN TIWARI
2023.02.23
16:37:50 +05'30'
