Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambabu Sharma @ Babu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 October, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 6225 of 2022
(RAMBABU SHARMA @ BABU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 20-10-2023
Shri R. K. Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri V. K. Agarwal,
Advocate for appellant.
Shri A. K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.17987/2023, which is second repeat application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant No.2 - Gaya Prasad.
His first application (IA No. 8840/2023) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 10.08.2023.
Appellant Gaya Prasad stands convicted under Section 148 IPC and
sentenced to undergo two years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section
302 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 22.06.2022 passed by the Third Additional Sessions
Judge, Jora, District Morena (Madhya Pradesh) in Sessions Trial No.247/2011.
The appellant so far has undergone jail sentence of one year and four
months.
As per prosecution story, an FIR was lodged by one Ballu Sharma that
on 25.11.2010 at about 7.30 in the morning while he was sitting in gallery with
his father Matadeen Sharma, brother Sarnam and Rupa in front of the fire place,
suddenly accused Lokendra Sharma armed with 315 bore gun, Anchharam
Sharma and Heera Sharma having armed with 12 bore guns, Ramjeevan armed
with 315 bore gun which was given to him by Mehant Baba, present appellant
with mouzer, Baijnath Sharma armed with licensed gun belonging to Lakhan
Sanvariya, Babu and Antim having armed with guns came on spot and started
firing gun shots indiscriminately. The gun shot fired by Lokendra Sharma had
hit left side of chest of Matadeen, who died on spot. On the aforesaid
allegations, FIR was lodged. After completion of investigation, charge sheet
was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions
Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record has convicted
and sentenced the appellant as referred above.
Learned Senior Counsel for appellant while taking exception to the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the
present appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated as a result of
previous enmity. The single gun shot was fired by co-accused Lokendra
Sharma as a result the bullet pierced through left side of the chest of deceased
Matadeen, who died on spot. There is no seizure of empty cartridges from the
spot. The spot map also does not suggest that there was indiscriminate firing
contrary to the allegation that due to such firing there were holes on the walls.
No act much less overtact is attributed to the appellant except the allegation that
he was armed with a gun. No arm was seized from the present appellant. Under
such circumstances the impugned judgment convicting the appellant under
Section 302 with the help of Section 149 of IPC is based on surmises and
conjectures. Co-accused Rambabu Sharma has already been extended benefit
of suspension of jail sentence by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2023.
Hence, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
appellant Gaya Prasad.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
application supporting the impugned judgment.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, regard being had to the fact that co-accused Rambabu Sharma has
already been extended benefit of suspension of jail sentence by this Court vide
order dated 08.09.2023, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, appellant-
Gaya Prasad is held entitled for extension of benefit of suspension of jail
sentence.
Accordingly, we allow the application and it is directed that the jail
sentence of appellant Gaya Prasad shall remain suspended during pendency of
present appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to verification of
factum regarding deposit of fine amount. Appellant Gaya Prasad is directed to
appear before the Registry of this Court first on 19.12.2023 and on other
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, I.A. No.17987/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
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.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
yog
YOGESH VERMA
2023.10.20
18:15:42 +05'30'
