Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jamsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 6045 of 2018
(JAMSINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-01-2023
Ms. Sharmila Sharma - Advocate for appellants.
Mr. Amit Singh Sisodiya - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
IA.No.11361/2022, which is an application for urgent hearing, stands
disposed of.
Also heard on I.A.No.11359/2022, which is first application under
Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence on behalf of
appellant No.4 â€" Kala S/o Babu.
The appellant No.4 vide judgment dated 31/07/2018 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Jhabua, District Jhabua (M.P.) in S.T. No.35/2016 stands
convicted Section 148, 302/149 and 341/149 of the IPC and has been sentenced
to under go 02 years RI, Life Imprisonment and 01 Month RI with fine of
Rs.1,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, on 24/11/2015 a report was lodged at Police
Station Jhabua that on 23/11/2015 near about 08:15 PM Bhanjiya, Sukiya,
Bhura, Pinju and Phutiya were siting outside the house. Jamsingh, Ramu Dinesh,
Babu, Kala and Titiya came there with a common intention armed with deadly
weapons and started assaulting Pinju due to previous enmity. Jamsingh gave a
blow by stick on forehead of Pinju and other have assaulted by means of
weapon in their hand. An FIR was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 341
and 302 of IPC and the accused were arrested.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the postmortem
report as well as statement of the Doctor and other witnesses, Pinju died
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 1/6/2023
6:57:45 PM
because of sole head injury said to have been caused by Jamsingh. Entire family
members, father and all the sons of Babu have been implicated because of
previous enmity. There is no overt act on the part of the appellant No.4. The
role attributed to the appellant Kala is only that he was present on the spot.
Hence, the appellant No.4 Kala is entitled for grant of suspension of sentence.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
opposes the prayer by submitting that the offence is serious in nature. Appellant
No.4 Kala was present on the spot and there was an intention to kill and no
ground is available to the appellant No.4 for suspension of the jail sentence.
Hence, he has rightly been convicted under Section 148, 302/149 and 341/149
of the IPC.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allegations against
appellant and period of custody and there is no likelihood of final hearing of this
criminal appeal in near future, without commenting on the merits of the case the
application for suspension of sentence IA. No.11359/2022 is allowed.
It is directed that subject to deposit of the fine amount, if not already
deposited, with the trial Court and on furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court, the execution of remaining custodial part of the sentence
of the appellant No.4 Kala S/o Babu shall remain suspended till final disposal of
this appeal.
The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his presence before
the Registry of this Court on 24/04/2023 and on all such subsequent dates,
which are fixed in this behalf.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 1/6/2023
6:57:45 PM
With the aforesaid, IA.No.11359/2022 stand disposed of.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 1/6/2023
6:57:45 PM
