Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kersingh Alias Keru vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2023
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 3144 of 2018
(KERSINGH ALIAS KERU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 31-01-2023
Shri Sameer Verma,learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Akash Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.12629/2022, 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]
T h e trial Court has convicted the appellant 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 in
Sessions Act Imprisonment
details 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 appellant 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.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not
committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. It has not
been established by the prosecution that recovered ornaments were same which
were stolen. Identification of appellant and ornaments has not been carried out
properly. There are much omissions and contradictions in the statement of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 01-02-2023
17:42:27
prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant has 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 appellant 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
appellant 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'
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 appellant 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 appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 01-02-2023
17:42:27
Accordingly, I.A. No.12629/2022 is dismissed.
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
