Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Criminal Appeal No.447/2018
(SURENDRA Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Indore, dated 13.10.2023
Shri Ramesh Sonvane, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.A. No.14103/2023 is a repeat (second) application under Section
389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Surendra Rajput S/o
Karan Singh Rajput.
2. The trial Court has convicted the appellant vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 13/11/2017 in SST No.6/2013
passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Indore (M.P.) as under:-
CONVICTION SENTENCE
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if deposited Imprisonment in lieu of
details fine
302/149 IPC (3 counts) Life Imprisonment Rs.2,000/-, R.I. for 2-2 years
Rs.2000/-
3(ii)(v) SC/ST Act Life Imprisonment Rs.500-500/- R.I. for 2-2 years
SC/ST Act
324/149 IPC (2 counts) 2-2 years R.I. Rs.500-500/- R.I. for 6-6 months
148 IPC 2 Years R.I. Rs.500-500/- R.I. for 6-6 months
3. As per the prosecution story, on 09.07.2012 near about 10:00
pm complainant Raghuveer Singh lodged an FIR at police station Bakaner
that the incident took place at village Barda where the work of filling of
sand from river through dumper was going on. When Jagmohan and his
friend were engaged in the work of filling of sand through dumper,
appellant Surendra Singh alongwith other accused persons came there and
started dispute on the point of payment of royalty. They all were armed
with the deadly weapons. One of them was carrying chilli powder in the
plate and he thrown the chilli powder on deceased and injured persons and
thereafter all the accused persons started assaulting, due to which three
died and one person has sustained the injury, who has fully supported the
case of prosecution. This appellant was said to have carrying a dhariya in
his hand. The deceased person sustained number of injuries. The
allegation against the present appellant is that he caused the injury to Bapu
Singh, who sustained as many as 14 injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no incise wound
was found on the body of Bapu Singh, therefore, the allegation of causing
of injury to Bapu Singh by farsi has not been proved. Hence, the appellant
is entitled for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
suspension application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard.
6. The appellant was a member of unlawful assembly, all went to
the scene of crime with a common intension to create the dispute and
thereafter assaulted the deceased and injured persons. By throwing a chilli
in the eyes deceased were defenseless and thereafter all the accused
persons including present appellant caused multiple injuries by way of
deadly weapons. Merely, 10 years have been completed in jail in triple
murder case where there was a common intension and object that cannot
be a ground for bail. Individual role cannot be examined especially when
the presence of appellant has been found established. Other persons have
also sustained incise wounds which are duly described by Dr. Saurabh
Baurasi (PW-13), who conducted the postmortem. All the injuries are
described in para 35 to 41, therefore, in our opinion, the appellant is not
entitled for suspension of sentence. Hence, I.A. No.14103/2023 is hereby
rejected.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vs
Digitally signed by VARSHA
SINGH
Date: 2023.10.16 18:12:30
+05'30'
