Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhura Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 January, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1202 of 2014
(BHURA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 03-01-2023
Shri S.S. Gautam - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A. No.6490/2022, which is third repeat application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant No. 2 - Pradeep
seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. His first application was
dismissed in want of prosecution on 19.10.2016 and second application was
also dismissed in want of prosecution on 04.01.2019.
Appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 and 302/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2014
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah District Morena (M.P.) in ST
No.245/2012.
Appellant has so far undergone almost 10 years and 4 months jail
incarceration including the period undergone during trial.
As per prosecution story, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Mahua,
District Morena at Crime Case No.53/2012 with an allegation that deceased
Ravindra @ Bata was sleeping in the front courtyard of the house and
eyewitness Gunja (PW-4) was also lying in the adjacent cot. The other witness
Dharmendra, who was also sleeping there, had gone at 05:00 in the morning to
respond nature's call. When he returned back at 05:30, he heard screaming of
nephew Bata, niece Gunja and sister-in-law Saroj. He was told by them that
accused Bhura armed with Baka and present appellant Pradeep were seen
running away from the courtyard towards their house. Eyewitness Gunja (PW-
3) stated that accused Bhura and present appellant Pradeep came on spot.
Present appellant caught hold of legs of the deceaseed Bata and accused Bhura
caused grievous injuries on the neck of the deceased Bata with Baka resulting
into his homicidal death. Accordingly, case has been registered against the
accused persons including present appellant. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The
Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of evidence placed on record primarily
relying upon evidence of eyewitness Gunja (PW-3) has convicted the appellant
and sentenced as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment inter alia submits that the Sessions Court committed grave error of
law and facts while convicting the appellant. Relevant evidence has not been
considered inasmuch as the appellant was not alleged to have been armed with
any lethal weapon. Even there is no blood stains found on the Baka allegedly
used by the co-accused Bhura causing homicidal death of the deceased Bata.
Even otherwise, appellant has already undergone 10 years and 4 months of jail
sentence. Sole allegation against the present appellant is that of catching hold of
feet of the deceased. There is no allegation of causing any hurt muchless
grievous hurt resulting into death of the deceased. During currency of jail
incarceration, he has developed bone tuberculosis. Under such circumstances,
learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently
opposed the application supporting the impugned judgment with submission
that regard being had to the nature of the story as unfolded in the FIR and
supported by the eyewitnesses, it is a clear case of causing homicidal death by
the main accused Bhura with the aid and help of the appellant, who had come
on the spot in furtherance of their common intention to cause death of the
deceased. Hence, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of
sentence.
Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, though this
Court refrains from commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the
case but regard being had to the fact that appellant has so far undergone 10
years and 4 months of jail custody and said to be suffering from bone
tuberculosis and the appeal is of the year 2014 and there is no likelihood of
early hearing of the appeal, we deem it proper to extend the benefit of
suspension of jail sentence to the appellant.
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.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24/02/2023
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.
Accordingly, I.A. No.6490/2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
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.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Abhi
Digitally signed by
ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI
Date: 2023.01.04 10:50:00
+05'30'
