Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 October, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 577 of 2016
(SUNIL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 26-10-2023
Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.12123 of 2023, fifth repeat application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant No.1 - Sunil Singh.
Present appellant stands convicted under Section 148 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/-; under Section
302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.5000/-; under Section 307/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
seven years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
13.04.2016 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Joura, District
Morena (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.284/2013.
T he present appellant so far has undergone jail sentence of 7 years 8
months and 13 days.
The prosecution story, as found proved, is that on 08.03.2013 at about 7
AM in pursuance of an altercation ensued upon accumulation of sludge near the
well of complainant Raguveer Singh, where tractor- trolly of Bhura and Jitendra
had got stuck, Darshan Singh, Sunil, Devisingh, Sahab Singh, Jagdish armed
with lathi and axes came out from the house of Jitendra while complainant's
brother Baturi, nephew Bhagwan Singh and Hansraj also came on the spot.
Jitendra, with an intention to kill, fired from his licenced gun at Baturi, which
entered from left side of his stomach and came out from the right side, Darshan
fired with his country made piston at Baturi causing injury on right wrist. When
Bhagwansingh rushed to save him, Sunil with an intention to kill fired causing
injury on his left palm. Devisingh, Sahab Singh, Bhura and Jagdish assaulted
them with lathis and axe due to which Baturi and Bhagwan Singh received
injuries. Baturi died on the spot. On the basis of such information, Dehati
Nalishi was registered at Crime No.0/13 and criminal law set into motion. Upon
completion of investigation including recording of statements, collection of
evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed before JMFC Jaura, from
where the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court on
appreciation of evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the present
appellant.
Learned counsel for appellants while taking exception to the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the Sessions Court
has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. It is
further submitted that the prosecution version is belied by medical evidence,
inasmuch as the allegation against the present appellant is of causing fire arm
injury to the injured Bhagwansingh whereas as per MLC report (Ex.P/8), the
injured has received incised injury. The other accused persons namely; Sahab
Singh, Bhura Singh, Jagdish and Devi Singh have been extended the benefit of
suspension of custodial sentence in connected Cr.A.No.470 of 2016. It is
further submitted that present appellant has so far undergone incarceration of 7
years 8 months and 13 days. It is further submitted that the appeal being of
2016 is not likely to be decided in the near future. On these grounds, learned
counsel submits that the present appellant may be extended the benefit of
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, Shri Nirankari, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on
behalf of the respondent/State while supporting the judgment impugned submits
that no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant
of bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon the rival contentions touching merits of the case, regard being had to the
fact that present appellant so far has undergone incarceration of 7 years 8
months and 13 days and the appeal, which is of the year 2016, is not likely to be
decided in the near future, we are of the view that present appellant is entitled to
the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, IA No.12123 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of appellant No.1 Sunil Singh shall remain suspended during
pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to
verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Appellant No.1 Sunil Singh is directed to appear before the Registry of
this Court first on 18.12.2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in
this behalf.
Accordingly, the said IA 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) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
SANJEEV KUMAR
PHANSE
2023.10.27
12:08:03 +05'30'
