Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Alias Sanju Bhagel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2106 of 2021
(SANJEEV ALIAS SANJU BHAGEL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 26-06-2023
Shri Rajnish Sharma-Advocate for appellants.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani-Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.25467/2021, second application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant No.5-Mahendra Singh Baghel.
Appellant No.5-Mahendra Singh Baghel along with other co-accused
persons stands convicted under Section 341/149 of IPC r/W Section 3(2)(va)
of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo one month R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-
and under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment
with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act and sentenced
to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations
vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/01/2021 passed by
Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities Act), 1989, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh in S.S.T. No.132/2018.
As per prosecution story, on the fateful day i.e. 6/7/2018, at about 8:00
a.m., while deceased Kanchedi was going towards Bawdi on bicycle, he was
intercepted by accused Pankaj, Sanju, Kallu, Arjun and Mahendra Singh Baghel
(present appellant) armed with axe, danda, farsa etc. over past animosity. They
all started assaulting Kanchedi indiscriminately with the aforesaid weapons. As a
result, deceased Kanchedi suffered five injuries as well discussed in Para-17 of
the impugned judgement. Consequently, due to serious deep injuries in different
parts of the body and excessive bleeding, deceased Kanchedi died on spot. On
aforesaid information, marg intimation was registered at No.60/2018 vide
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 6/27/2023
4:58:48 PM
Ex.P.25 and thereafter, an FIR vid e Ex.P.30 was registered at Crime Case
No.345/2018 against present appellant and other co-accused persons under
Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 341 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
Act. During the course of investigation, statements of number of witnesses were
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There are two eyewitnesses namely
Bhaiyalal (PW-1), an independent witness and Jugraj (PW-2), the son of
deceased. The evidence of independent witness namely Bhaiyalal (PW-1) has
been well discussed from paragraphs 32 to 35 of the impugned judgment. He
has specifically stated injuries caused by each of the accused persons inlcuding
the present appellant said to have been armed with danda. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the
Sessions Court. The Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence
placed on record has convicted and sentenced the present appellant along with
other co-accused persons as referred above.
Shri Rajnish Sharma, learned counsel appearing for appellant No.5-
Mahendra Kumar Baghel while taking exception to the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence tried to prick holes therein inter alia
contending that according to Sessions Court, the evidence of Jugraj (PW-2)
was not worth credence as his testimony ran contrary to the statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is no evidence on record attributing any act
much less overt act to the present appellant in the alleged scene of crime. Mere
presence of appellant No.5 ought not to have led to his conviction under
Section 302/149 of IPC. The Sessions Judge has convicted the present
appellant only for the reason that he possessed d a n d a at the scene of
incidence. Appellant No.5-Mahendra Singh Baghel has already suffered jail
Signature Not Verified
incarceration for 4 years and 11 months; therefore, prays for suspension of
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 6/27/2023
4:58:48 PM
sentence.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State while
supporting the impugned judgement has submitted that it is not only the
presence of present appellant at the scene of incidence but specific overt act
with danda attributed to him. At the scene of the incidence, all the five accused
persons with common intention and motive were standing on spot where
deceased Kanchedi going on bicycle was intercepted and indiscriminately
attacked and beaten up black and blue. He suffered five grievous injuries
including one on head. Each of the injuries were deep to the bones as described
in Para-17 of the impugned judgement. There were fracture of multiple ribs
resulting into rupture of spleen. As a result of such injuries, deceased Kanchedi
has died homicidal death. Present appellant's complicity is as clear as noon in a
day regard being had to the evidence placed on record. Under such
circumstances, present appellant does not deserve to be extended the benefit of
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Upon careful perusal of judgement under challenge, evidence on record
and submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, though this Court
refrains from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits
of the case, regard being had to the evidence of independent witness namely
Bhaiyalal (PW-1) as well discussed from para 32 to 35, prima facie we are of
the view that no case is made out to extend the benefit of suspension of
sentence to present appellant namely Mahendra Singh Baghel at this stage.
Accordingly, I.A.25467/2021 stands dismissed on merits.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 6/27/2023
4:58:48 PM
(ROHIT ARYA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 6/27/2023
4:58:48 PM
