Pradeep Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3529 MP

                                                             1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 1052 of 2022
                                       (PRADEEP KHARE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                         Dated : 28-02-2023
                               Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the appellants.

                               Shri A. N. Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Shri Deepak Kumar Singh - Advocate for objector.

Heard on I.A. No.19507 of 2022 which is second application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail

to appellants No. 1 (Pradeep Khare), No.2 (Ramakant Khare) and No.3 Vikash Khare arising out of judgment dated 13/01/2022 delivered in S.T. No.204/2014,

by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (MP).

The appellants have been convicted by the trial Court under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.250/- and under Section 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with default stipulations.

While arguing this repeat application for suspension of sentence, the

attention of this Court is drawn on the recent order dated 30/08/2022 whereby application for suspension of sentence for appellant No.1 to 3 was rejected by this Court.

By placing reliance on two judgments of this Court passed in CRA No.4228 of 2017 (Mohammad Farhan vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) and CRA No.1687 of 2017 (Jhamman Lal Malik vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) which are based on judgment of Supreme Court in (2004) 7 SCC 528 (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

3/1/2023 4:52:22 PM

another), learned counsel for the appellants submits that this bail application is entertainable because previous order is based on two incorrect findings.

To elaborate, Shri Kochar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the previous order dated 30/08/2022, the Court has given finding that the applicants were aggressor and they came to the house of complainant armed with deadly weapons. These two findings are not correct which is evident from the evidence of Ambika Singh (PW-17)/Investigating Officer, who in his cross- examination deposed that he is unable to state as to who were the aggressor.

Vijendra Dholpure (PW-1) stated that the incident/quarrel had taken place in front of house of the accused persons. The treatment of deceased had taken

place in L.B.S. Hospital and not in Hamidiya Hospital. By taking this Court to the statement of Dr. J. K. Chourasia (PW-16), it is urged that the injuries were not arising out of any danda, rod and blunt object. No corresponding injuries were found on the person of deceased. For the same purpose, statement of Dr. D.S.Badkur (PW-14) is relied upon. In nutshell, Shri Kochar submits that la th ies were recovered from these appellants and in absence of any corresponding injuries found on the person of deceased, these appellants deserve benefit of suspension of sentence.

Shri A. N. Gupta, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer and drew the attention of this Court on post mortem report, wherein nature of injuries were mentioned in detail. Statement of Sona Dhopuriya (PW-3) was also relied upon. As many as 17 injuries were found on the person of deceased. Injuries No. 4 and 9 could have been caused by lathi.

Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for objector borrowed almost same line of argument and urged that there is an eye-witness account and on the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

3/1/2023 4:52:22 PM

basis of same, it cannot be said that appellants were falsely arraigned.

We have heard the parties at length on this aspect and perused the record.

Even assuming that twin findings given in the previous order dated 30/08/2022 are incorrect, the evidence on record shows that prima facie there is ample evidence against the appellants. Sona Dholuriya (PW-3) wife of deceased is an eye-witness and her statement is considered in para 48 of the impugned judgment. Injuries Nos. 4 and 9, prima facie, could have been caused by lathi. Thus, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we find no reason to entertain this application.

Accordingly, I.A No.19507 of 2022 is dismissed.

                            (SUJOY PAUL)                                 (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
                               JUDGE                                              JUDGE

                         manju




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
3/1/2023 4:52:22 PM