Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaiyaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 3 May, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 747 of 2015
(BHAIYARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
Dated : 03-05-2023
Per Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal:
Shri S. K. Tiwari- learned counsel for appellant Bhaiyaram.
Shri A.K.Nirankari- learned Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.
Heard on I.A.No.728 of 2019, first application under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant Bhaiyaram.
This criminal appeal assails the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 09-07-2015 passed in S.T. No.192/2012 by 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District Ashoknagar (M.P.), whereby aforesaid
appellant has been convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to
Life Imprisonment with fine Rs.5,000/-, sentenced to one year and six months
RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 148 of IPC, two years RI
with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence under Section 325/149 of IPC, six months
RI for offence under Section 323/149 of IPC (on three counts) and two years
RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 452 of IPC with default
stipulations. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution story, in short, is that on 08.10.2012 at around 7-8:00 PM,
there was a dispute between deceased Naresh Namdev and appellant No. 1 Sher
Singh near the shop of Mr. Vikas Jain in village over a matter of grass. At that
time, Rajesh Namdev, his mother Mrs. Savitri Bai Namdev and Naresh's
daughter Babli brought Naresh home after intervening in the matter. On that, in
the night of 09.10.2012, Sher Singh armed with Ballam, Ghanshyam armed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 5/4/2023
10:53:11 AM
with an Axe, Monu alias Durgesh armed with Farsa, Ranbir armed with stick
and Bhaiyaram armed with Luhangi, came to the house of Naresh Namdev and
got the door opened. As soon as the door was opened, the said five accused
entered inside his house and started assaulting Naresh Namdev with the
intention to kill him. Sher Singh assaulted on the head of the deceased Naresh
Namdev, due to which, he fell down and blood started oozing out. When the
father of deceased Barelal and mother Savitribai came to save him, all accused
beaten them. Sher Singh assaulted Barelal by means of Ballam which hit on his
eye, due to which, blood started oozing out from mouth and eyes. Ghanshyam
assaulted Savitribai with Axe on her head, as a result of which blood started
oozing out. Ghanshyam and Monu alias Durgesh assaulted on the head of
Naresh. Ranbeer assaulted Naresh Namdev by means of stick and Bhaiyaram
(present appellant) assaulted Naresh Namdev by means of luhangi. Ghanshyam
assaulted on the head of complainant Rajesh Namdev by means of Axe, due to
which blood started oozing out. On the basis of aforesaid, crime was
registered.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated. He has been wrongly convicted by learned trial Court. He
was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. He has
served more than six months in custody during trial and from the date of
passing of impugned judgment, he is in custody. It is further submitted that case
o f present appellant is identical to that of co-convicted accused Sher Singh
whose jail sentence has already been suspended by this Court vide order dated
15-02-2023 passed in connected CRA No.730 of 2015. There are fair chances
of success of this appeal. The appeal is of the year 2015 which may take long
time for its conclusion and the appellant cannot be kept in custody for an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 5/4/2023
10:53:11 AM
unlimited period. Under these circumstances, the remaining execution of jail
sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.
O n the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent State opposed suspension application and prayed for its rejection.
Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and maintaining the party as well as the fact that appellant is in custody
since date of passing of impugned judgment and an early hearing of this appeal
is not possible, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
aforesaid IA is allowed. It is, therefore, directed that if appellant deposits the
entire fine amount, if not already deposited and furnishes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety
of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 21st of August, 2023 and on such subsequent dates
as may be fixed by Office in this regard, the sentence of imprisonment awarded
to the appellant shall remain suspended till disposal of present appeal and he
shall be released on bail.
IA 728 of 2019 stands disposed of and closed.
CC as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 5/4/2023
10:53:11 AM
