Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhote Raja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7496 of 2019
(CHHOTE RAJA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-05-2023
Mr. Aman Dawra - Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for State.
Record of the court below has been received.
Heard on I.A.No.3965/2022, wh ic h is the third application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Chhote Raja arising out
of judgment dated 27.08.2019 delivered in S.T. No.60/2016 by Second
Additional Sessions Judge Bijawar, District-Chhatarpur (M.P.). The earlier two
applications being I.A. Nos.16596/2019 and 20191/2021 have been dismissed
as withdrawn vide orders dated 23.01.2020 and 16.12.2021 respectively.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/-, under
Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life
with fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500, under Section 25(1-
B)A of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of
Rs.500/- and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant by taking this Court to the prosecution
story submitted that as per the story, the specific overt-act is in relation to
accused Balwan Singh and accused Bhawani Singh. The Court below has
convicted nine persons. This Court by different orders have suspended the
remaining jail sentence of seven persons. He placed reliance on the orders dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 5/3/2023
2:57:59 PM
08.11.2021 and 16.12.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal
Nos.7621/2019, 7530/2019, 8064/2019, 7530/2019, 7621/2019.
By placing reliance on the order dated 08.11.2021 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.8064/2019, Mr. Dawra submits that in view of this order and by
applying principles of parity, the present appellant may be given the benefit of
suspension of sentence as he remained in actual custody for almost five years.
Mr. Singh, learned Govt. Advocate opposed the prayer but did not
dispute the factum of parity.
This Court in order dated 08.11.2021 recorded as under:-
"Heard on I.A.No.2590/2021 which is the second application
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
The first application being I.A.No.20142/2019 was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 26.02.2020.
The case of the prosecution is that the appellant along with
the coaccused persons were members of an unlawful
assembly who had fired from their firearms and caused the
death of Sahab Singh and caused injury to the injured eye
witness Gajraj Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the case
of the prosecution is taken to be true and correct, the
statement of the injured witness would reveal that he was fired
upon by co-accused Sujan Singh and not by the the appellant
herein.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that PW-5
Jagar Singh, who is also the complainant, in his statement has
stated that the it was the appellant Bhawani Singh who had
fired the gun shot which resulted in an injury to Gajraj Singh.
The injury caused to Gajraj Singh appears to have been
simple as it hit below the knee and did not fracture the
underlying bone.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we
perused the statement of injured witness Gajraj Singh, who
has clearly stated that he had received the gun shot injury on
account of shot fired by co-accused Sujan Singh. He has not
Signature Not Verified
attributed any role to the appellant herein of having fired the
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 5/3/2023
2:57:59 PM
gun shot. PW-5, who is complainant has stated that it was the
appellant herein who fired the gun shot which injured Gajraj
Singh.
Giving a prima-facie appreciation to the conflicting evidence
both of Gajraj Singh and Jahar Singh, we would go with the
evidence of injured witness Gajraj Singh, who states that he
suffered the injury on account of the shot fired by Sujan
Singh and not the appellant herein.
Under the circumstances, in view of what has been stated
herein-above and without commenting upon the merits of the
case, I.A.No.2590/2021 is allowed and it is directed that the
appellant herein shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand
Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court.
The jail authorities shall have the appellant checked by the jail
doctor to ensure that he is not suffering from the corona virus
and if he is, he shall be sent to the nearest hospital designated
by the State for treatment. If not, he shall be transported to
his place of residence by the jail authorities.
C.C. as per rules."
In view of principles of parity, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A No. 3965/2022 is
allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant Chhote Raja is hereby suspended and it is
directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond
for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with a further
direction to appear before the Trial Court, Bijawar, District-Chhatarpur
(M.P.) on 12/07/2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the
Trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 5/3/2023
2:57:59 PM
(SUJOY PAUL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
julie
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 5/3/2023
2:57:59 PM
