Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7533 of 2018
(RAMKUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 16-01-2023
Shri Amit Goswami-Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani- Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/State.
Shri Girdhar Gopal Shivhare-Advocate for the objector.
Heard on IA No.20000/2021, third application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant Ramkumar for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default
stipulation, vide judgment dated 31.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No.60/2015.
As per prosecution case, at about 8.15 am on 07.10.2014 Farasram (PW-
1 ) lodged an FIR at Police Station Karera that his brother deceased Mangal
Singh was residing in a small hutment (Kutir) near Siddha Baba Temple on
highway, while the complainant lived in front of said hutment. On the fateful
day, i.e., on 6.10.2014 at about 10-11 pm, while Mangal Singh was sleeping in
his hutment and complainant was in his house, after alarm being raised the
complainant and his uncle Jagdish (PW-2) rushed to the hutment where they
found that accused Suresh Yadav, Ramkumar Yadav (present appellant),
Bhagwan Singh Yadav, Kanchan Yadav, Kadam Singh Yadav, Anil Yadav were
present in the hutment. Accused Suresh was armed with 315 bore gun and other
accused persons including present appellant were armed with countrymade
pistols. All of them fired 4-5 gunshots at deceased Mangal Singh. On alarm
being raised by the complainant and his uncle accused persons fled away in a
Swift Car. The case was taken up for investigation. Upon completion of
investigation, challan was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court
for trial. The trial Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on
record has recorded finding of guilt against the appellant and other accused
persons and sentenced them as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment submits that the presence of the appellant on spot is highly doubtful
as, according to the ocular evidence of Investigating Officer, there was no bulb
light/illumination on spot. Hence, the allegation that the appellant remained
present with countrymade pistol at the place of incident has wrongly been acted
upon by the Sessions Court. That apart, omnibus allegations have been made
against all accused persons. No specific overt act is attributed to the appellant.
Hence, the finding recorded by the Court below suffered from perversity of
approach and, therefore, the conclusion of conviction and sentence is
vulnerable. The appellant has already suffered jail incarceration for about eight
years. Hence, prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
objector while supporting the impugned judgment inter alia submit that the
ocular evidence of Farasram (PW-1), Jagdish (PW-2), Ramkumar (PW-3) and
Kaptan Singh (PW-5) placed on record are consistent supporting the case of
the prosecution and withstood the cross-examination. Critical evaluation of the
relevant part of the evidence is elaborately discussed in paras 22 and 35 of the
judgment. All the witnesses have stated about the presence of the appellant on
spot and his active participation in the crime, besides, number of gun shot
injuries suffered by the deceased is also well corroborated with the evidence of
Dr. Pradeep Sharma (PW-4) as discussed in para 10. That apart, in para 38 of
the judgment the Sessions Court has also discussed about the factum of the
incident duly proved and further that the accused persons armed with firearms
had run away from the place of incident. Hence, no exception can be taken to
the impugned judgment in the matter of suspension of sentence.
Up o n hearing learned counsel for the rival parties though this Court
refrains from commenting upon the rival contentions touching merits of the
case, however looking to the intensity and gravity of the crime, proved
involvement of the appellant and nature of injuries suffered by the deceased
resulting into his homicidal death having serious impact upon the society, this
Court at this stage is not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of appellant-
Ramkumar.
Accordingly, I.A. No.20000/2021 stands dismissed.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
SUNEEL
DUBEY
2023.01.17
09:58:51
-08'00'
