Bechu @ Mahesh Bhawar Bhil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1746 MP

                                                              1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                       CRA No. 4961 of 2017
                                 (BECHU @ MAHESH BHAWAR BHIL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 31-01-2023
                                 Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants.

                                 Shri Aakash Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the Objector.

Heard on I.A. No.5483/2022, which is first application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf

of appellant no.1- [email protected] and appellant no.3 [email protected] Raju Chouhan.

Also, heard on I.A. No.5486/2022, which is repeat second application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant no.2- Revsingh.

T h e trial Court has convicted the appellants vide judgment dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dewas in session trial no.2100375/2013 as under:-

Fine deposited Imprisonment Sessions Act Imprisonment details in lieu of fine

396 IPC Life R.I. Rs.10,000/- 1 year R.I.

460 IPC 5 years R.I. Rs.5,000/- 6 months R.I.

As per prosecution case, intervening night of 04.06.2013 and 05.06.2013 the appellants and co-accused persons entered in the house of deceased Rajesh Yadav and snatched Nokia mobile phone from his wife Meena Bai. The accused persons looted Rs.20,000/-, gold and silver ornaments and murdered deceased Rajesh Yadav.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 01-02-2023 17:42:27

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in the case. It has not been established by the prosecution that recovered ornaments were same which were stolen. Identification of appellants and ornaments has not been carried out properly. There are much omissions and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Ram Ratan Vs. State of M.P. reported in M.P.L.J. (Criminal) 2022 (2) (SC) (1).

Per Contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the prayer of the appellants by submitting that eye witness of the incidence

Meena Bai (PW-3) has identified the accused persons except Revsingh, as she properly identified ornaments and Nokia mobile phone recovered from the possession of accused persons. He further submitted that looking to the seriousness of the offence, the application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellants deserves to be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

In the case of Ram Ratan (supra) the observation of the Apex Court in paragraph-17 is reproduced below:-

"17. From the position of law as enunciated by this Court and noted above, firstly, it is clear that the use of the weapon to constitute the offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that the 'offender' should actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient. The other aspect is that if the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the 'offenders' had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the 'offender' Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 01-02-2023 17:42:27

who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC."

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, after considering the evidence against the appellants on record and the law laid down in case of Ram Ratan (Supra) which is not applicable in the present case. Hence, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellants.

Accordingly, I.A. No.5483/2022 and I.A. No.5486/2022 stands dismissed.

I.A. No.5485/2022 and I.A. No.5488/2022 urgent hearing also stands closed.

List for final hearing in due course.

                                  (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                      (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                                           JUDGE                                      JUDGE

                           ajit




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 01-02-2023
17:42:27