Madhya Pradesh High Court
Phool Singh @ Fullu Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 5148 of 2023
(PHOOL SINGH @ FULLU RAIKWAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 09-10-2023
Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellants.
Ku. Preeti Singh - Panel Lawyer for respondent no.1-State.
Heard on admission.
The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A No.20421/2023, which is second application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of the appellants.
Each of the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable
under Section 294 of IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs.200/-, Section 341 of
IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs.200/-, Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs.200/-, Section 3(1)(S) of
SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with a fine of
Rs.200/- and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
three years with a fine of Rs.200/- respectively, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the jail sentence of
appellants was suspended by the trial court till 12.5.2023 (as mentioned in the
application). Thereafter, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
20.4.2023 has extended the period of bail of appellants for a period of eight
weeks. The appellants are currently in custody as per the order sheet dated
22.9.2023 of this Court. The maximum jail sentence of appellants is of three
years and they were on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to
them and also the appeal would take considerable time to conclude. They are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11-Oct-23
4:18:45 PM
read y to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and
conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the
application for suspension of sentence may be considered.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and prays
for its rejection.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and record of the
court below.
This application for suspension of sentence has been argued on the
ground that there is contradiction about the weapon allegedly used for causing
injury and further there is contradiction in the statement of Dr. Shabana Masood
(PW/8) and Dr. Vaibhav Maheshwari (PW/11) about the injury caused on left
hand. Firstly, it is mentioned in the statements of Dr. Shabana Masood PW/8 at
item No.3, that the complainant had reported pain in his left hand and Dr.
Vaibhav Maheshwari (PW/11) confirmed that there was a fracture in the ulna
bone of left hand. So there is no contradiction in medical evidence. The
complainant has stated that he was caused injury with the use of lohangi. Similar
are the facts narrated in the FIR (Ex.P/10. The use of lohangi was corroborated
by eye witness Rekhabai (PW/2). No suggestion was given to Dr. Shabana
Masood (PW/8) and Dr. Vaibhav Maheshwari (PW/11) by the defence that the
injuries found on the person of complainant could not have been caused by
using a lohangi.
Having considered these facts, the application for suspension of sentence
is dismissed.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
DevS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11-Oct-23
4:18:45 PM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11-Oct-23
4:18:45 PM
