Lal Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16165 MP

                                                                1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                       CRA No. 12554 of 2022
                                        (LAL PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 03-10-2023
                                Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri J.P. Singroul - Advocates for

                          appellants.
                                Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
                                Shri Ghanshyam Pandey and Shri Sanjay Ku. Patel - Advocates for the
                          objector.

                                Reserved on               : 22.09.2023
                                Pronounced on              : 03.10.2023

                                Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.
                                Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
                                                              ORDER

Heard on I.A. Nos.13579/2023, 10219/2023 and 15521/2023, the repeat applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellants no.1, 3, 4 and 5 namely Lal Pratap Singh, Krishnapal Singh, Vishnupal Singh and Awadhesh Pratap Singh. Earlier applications of aforesaid

appellants were dismissed as withdrawn.

The applications have been argued on the ground that the appellants have been convicted under Sections 148, 307/149 (on 5 counts) with additional offence of Section 25(1-B)A of Arms Act. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that a cross case was registered against complainant side in which application for suspension of sentence has already been allowed and a copy thereof has been filed alongwith other document in this case. That Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 10/4/2023 3:24:56 PM

order shows that the complainant side was also convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Thus, it is argued that the complainant side is enjoying the liberty under suspension of sentence while appellants are still languishing in jail.

It is argued by the learned counsel for appellants that there is contradiction in the ocular as well as medical evidence regarding the gunshot injury because witnesses have claimed that the firearm was shot from a distance of around 200 feet while according to the doctor charring and tattooing which was found around the wound could have been caused only if the injury was caused from a distance of 3-4 feet.

It is further argued that the CCTV footage available on record did not

disclose the fact that any of the appellants was carrying a firearm and according to CCTV footage, only lathis were seen therein. On the basis of this authentic evidence, it could not have been held that appellants caused any injury with any firearm.

Application for suspension of sentence has been opposed by the complainant side as well as the State and this plea has been strongly resisted that there was any cross case registered against complainant side. For this, para 33 of the judgment has been referred to.

Having considered the arguments of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be successfully argued that the application for suspension of sentence should be allowed merely for the reason that the other party has got that benefit. Further, this Court is not inclined to examine at this stage whether there is a cross case against complainant side. So far as the injuries caused to the complainant side are concerned, it appears that the injuries caused to victim Rajesh were apparently from a firearm while the injuries caused to other persons were of the nature of lacerated wound and abrasions. Dr. Suresh Sharma has Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 10/4/2023 3:24:56 PM

opined that all these injuries were caused by firearm and his opinion is based on the tattooing and charring, which was found around the injuries, but he has admitted that the lacerated wound caused to Bharat could have resulted from otherwise as well. Injuries caused to all the injured persons were found to be superficial and none of the injuries were dangerous to life.

It is true, in the offence under Section 307 of IPC only intention is relevant and not the nature of injury, yet this fact cannot be ignored that present appellants were held convicted for causing injuries to so many persons, but substantial injury was caused to none of the injured persons. Accordingly, the applications are allowed.

It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the appellants no.1, 3, 4 and 5 namely Lal Pratap Singh, Krishnapal Singh, Vishnupal Singh and Awadhesh Pratap Singh shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail for securing their presence before the trial Court concerned on 04.12.2023 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, the aforesaid I.As. stand allowed and disposed of.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

rv

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 10/4/2023 3:24:56 PM