Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramprakash Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 March, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 975 of 2014
(RAMPRAKASH KUSHWAH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 29-03-2023
Shri A.K. Jain-Advocate for appellants.
Shri A.K.Nirankari-Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A.No.5642 of 2023, ninth repeat application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant No.3-Balakram.
Appellant No.3 so far has undergone about 08 years and 10 months'
incarceration.
Appellant stood convicted under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/- under
Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 IPC with default
stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
28.08.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.)
in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2013.
As per prosecution story, on the date of incident i.e. 09.03.2013 at about
07:30 pm, Ramkishan, brother of complainant Gangaram, was going to lift up
the flour from the mill. As soon as Ramkishan reached near the house of Kunji,
all the accused restricted him. Accused Balakram (present appellant),
Chandrashekhar by means of lathi, Ramprakash Kulhadi, Janak @ Lalu by
means of farsa assaulted Ramkishan. On screams of Ramkishan, brothers of
Ramkishan i.e. Gangaram and Govind rushed to the spot and tried to rescue
Ramkishan. At that time, accused Ramprakash with an intention to cause death
inflicted axe blow on the head of Ramkishan, accused Balakram inflicted lathi
blow to Gangaram and accused Chandrashekhar and Janak assaulted
Govinddas by means of lathi and farsa due to which Gangaram and Govinddas
also sustained injuries in head. At that time Shankar Kushwah, Vikram and
Kailash also came to the spot on which accused fled away. Injured Ramkishan
was got to the hospital where the doctor declared him to be dead. Accordingly,
the case was registered and upon completion of investigation, challan was filed.
The Sessions Court on appreciation of evidence placed on record convicted
and sentenced the present appellant.
S hri Jain, learned counsel for appellant No.3-Balakram, while taking
exception to the impugned judgment submits that Sessions Court has not
appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. The judgment
suffers from surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that present
appellant so far has undergone about 08 years and 10 months' incarceration. He
further submits that co-accused/appellant No.4 Janak Singh has already been
extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail vide order
dated 05.12.2014 (IA.No.8757 of 2014) and co-accused/appellant No.2-
Chandrashekhar has already been extended the benefit of suspension of
sentence and grant of bail vide order dated 17.03.2023 (IA.No.6829 of 2022).
The appeal is not likely to be decided in the near future. On these grounds,
learned counsel for appellant No.3 submits that the appellant No.3 may also be
extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the impugned judgment submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced touching the merits of
the case, but regard being had to the fact that present appellant so far has
undergone about 08 years and 10 months' incarceration, co-accused/appellant
No.4 Janak Singh has already been extended the benefit of suspension of
sentence and grant of bail vide order dated 05.12.2014 (IA.No.8757 of 2014)
and co-accused/appellant No.2-Chandrashekhar has already been extended the
benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail vide order dated 17.03.2023
(IA.No.6829 of 2022) and the appeal is not likely to be decided in the near
future, we are of the view that appellant No.3-Balakram is entitled to the benefit
of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 5642 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of appellant No.3-Balakram shall remain suspended during
pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to
verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He is
directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 02/05/2023 and on
other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further
conditions:-
(i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing
appellant No.3-Balakram, his medical examination be conducted
through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is
having any symptom of COVID-19, then the consequential follow
up action or any further test required be undertaken immediately. If
not, appellant No.3 shall be released on bail in terms of the
conditions imposed in this order;
(ii) in case of violation of conditions, State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
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.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aman
AMAN TIWARI
2023.03.29
17:51:41 +05'30'
