Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Handa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 10 July, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 792 of 2015
(ABHISHEK HANDA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.)
Dated : 10-07-2023
Shri Deependra Singh Raghuvanshi- Advocate for the appellant-
Abhishek Hada.
Shri Lokendra Shrivastava- Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA. No. 10558 of 2023, which is fifth repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail
moved on behalf of appellant No.1- Abhishek Hada. His last application (IA
No. 25758/2021) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.02.2023.
Appellant No.1-Abhishek Hada stood convicted under Section 302 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-; under
Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to five years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, with
default stipulations and under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of Arms Act and
sentenced to three years RI each vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 30.06.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial
No.141/2013.
It is apt to mention here that out of total 12 accused persons, 10 accused
persons have been acquitted and present appellant along with co-accused
Ranjeet Raghuvanshi have been convicted by the trial Court. Appellant No.1-
Abhishek Hada has so far undergone jail incarceration of 10 years 5 months and
04 days without remission and 13 years 10 months 19 days with remission.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.08.2012 complainant Dinesh
Singh lodged a Dehati Nalishi that at about 4 pm he had gone to attend
mourning meeting in Prince Garden, thereafter he had gone to Pantajali Kendra,
Jagdish Colony, where he was sitting on chair along with Babla @ Rampratap,
Dablu Singh, Suresh and Arvind Singh. At that time, Dilip and Arun came there.
Present appellant Abhishek Hada having hockey in his hand came with two
other persons, where were barehanded. Thereafter some altercation took place
amongst them. Co-accused Ranjeet, present appellant Abhishek and their two
companions were forced to go out towards car but after some time Ranjeet and
Abhishek armed with guns came on the spot with two other persons. Ranjeet
and Abhishek fired gun shots which caused injuries over head of complainant
Dinesh and stomach of Dilip. Dileep fell down and blood started oozing.
Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away from the spot. On such
allegations Dehati Nalishi (Ex. D/2) was recorded at Police Chowki, District
Hospital, Guna, for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC and
Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, thereafter FIR was lodged by Police Station
Kotwali, Guna at Crime No. 376/2012 under Sections 307/34 of IPC and
Sections 25/27 of Arms Act. During investigation, complainant Dinesh and Dilip
were sent for medical examination, where Dilip was declared dead. Upon which,
offence under Section 302 of IPC was added. After investigation, challan was
filed. The Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on
record convicted and sentenced the appellant, as referred above.
Shri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the appellant, while taking
exception to the impugned judgment, submits that it is a case of false
implication. The impugned judgment suffers from perversity of approach, as
relevant piece of evidence has been ignored by the trial Court. As per statement
of complainant Dinesh Singh (Ex.D/7) recorded under Section 161 of CrPC,
present appellant Abhishek is alleged to have caused gun shot injury to
complainant Dinesh Singh and co-accused Ranjeet is alleged to have caused
gun shot injury to Dilip in his stomach. There is no other evidence on record
contrary thereto. The impugned judgment rests upon surmises and conjectures.
The appellant No.1-Abhishek has already suffered jail incarceration of 10 years
5 months and 04 days without remission and 13 years 10 months 19 days with
remission. The appeal is of the year 2015 and there is no likelihood of early
hearing of appeal on merits. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant prays
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State while
supporting the impugned judgment opposes the application for suspension of
sentence submits that there is direct involvement of the appellant in the crime.
Hence, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, but regard being had to the fact that the appellant has suffered jail
incarceration for 13 years 10 months 19 days with remission and there is no
likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future, in the obtaining facts and
circumstances, appellant is held entitled for suspension of jail sentence.
Accordingly, IA No.10558 of 2023 is allowed and it is directed that the
jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of present
appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac and Fifty Thousand only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to
verification of factum regarding deposit of fine amount.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
04/09/2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
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
yog
YOGESH
VERMA
2023.07.11
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
12:30:50
+05'30'
