Veeru Rathor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7759 MP

                                   1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                            CRA No. 248 of 2020
                  (VEERU RATHOR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 11-05-2023
      Shri Sanjay Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.

      Shri P.S. Raghuvanshi - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard o n I.A.No.16299 of 2022, second application filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant No.1- Veeru Rathour.

The appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 323 and 294 of IPC and sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment, six months' RI three years' RI and three months' RI with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2019 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.137/2017 by Special Judge (Atrocities) Act, Gwalior.

According to the counsel for the appellant, the appellant has so far undergone six years' and one month's jail incarceration.

As per prosecution story, the complainant Jagdish alongwith his brother Gopal while the deceased Gopal was undergoing treatment at Trauma Center

lodged a complaint on 25.03.2017 to the effect that at about 10:00 AM while he was at home, accused persons, namely, Parso, Veeru (present appellant), Bhanu and Mahadevi (neighbors) had blocked the drain passing through his house with cow-dung and dirty water. As a result, filthy water was flowing in front of his house. As he objected to the same, accused persons started hurling filthy abuses. When the complainant alarmed not to do so, they thrown him into the drain. While he raised alarm, his brother-deceased came to rescue him. At that time, the present appellant armed with farsa had caused head injury to the

deceased Gopal, thereafter other accused persons Parso, and Bhanu started beating him with iron rod and lathi on his right leg, and arm, back, head etc. One accused lady Mahadevi has also hit him with fists and kicks. Other persons, namely, Ajab Rajput and Rajendra Tomar, who had seen the incident had come on spot. On such complaint being lodged, investigation started and upon completion of the investigation, the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record and examination of witnesses convicted and sentenced the present appellant along with other co-accused, as aforesaid.

Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, while taking

exception to the impugned judgment for suspension of sentence inter alia drawn the attention o this Court to para 17 of judgement to contend that only two injuries were found on his head, whereas as per the prosecution story, he also suffered injuries on the other parts of the body allegedly caused by the other accused persons, namely, Parso, Bhanu and Mahadevi. Therefore, the story of prosecution is belied by the doctor (PW-4). The appellant has already undergone six years' jail incarceration, therefore, he may be granted the benefit of suspension of sentence.

Per contra, Shri P.S. Raghuvanshi while sporting the impugned judgment inter alia submits that the cause of death of the deceased is the head injury as well discused in para 27 to 29 of the impugned judgment. The specific allegation has been made against the appellant armed with Farsa to have caused head injuries. The injuries caused to other persons are attributable to the other accused persons. The argument so advanced in the context of injuries is not only misplaced but also of no consequence. That apart, it is a clear case of murder with pre-mediation of mind, therefore, no exception can be taken in the

matter of suspension of sentence.

Upon consideration of submissions advanced, perusal of the impugned judgment, evidence referred to during the course of hearing, prima facie this Court finds substantial force in the submissions of Mr. Raghuvanshi. The allegation made against the appellant, the injuries caused and the cause of death shown in the post-mortem report are consistent, therefore, prima facie we are of the view that no case is made out for suspension of sentence.

Consequently, I.A.16299/2022 is dismissed on merits.

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.

   (ROHIT ARYA)                                    (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
      JUDGE                                                 JUDGE

neetu
    NEETU
    SHASHAN
    K
    2023.05.1
    2 10:52:14
    +05'30'