Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivgarh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 743 of 2020
(SHIVGARH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 31-10-2023
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Gaurav Singh Chouhan, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.14804/2023, which is first application under Section
389 of Cr.P.C. filed by appellant-Shivsingh S/o Mangilal Dangi for suspension
of sentence.
2. Appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed by
the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh(Biaora)(M.P.) in S.T. No.13/2018
for offence under Section 302/34(2 counts) of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for Life(2 counts) with fine of Rs.1,000/-(2 counts) with default
stipulation.
3. The prosecution case found to be proved is that on 22.11.2017 one
Gyan Singh lodged Dehati Nalishi alleging that at about 05:00 AM, one Vallabh
Gurjar came to his house and narrated the incident that as usual
Bherulal(deceased) and Kushal Bairagi(deceased) were sleeping on the riverbed
where they used to carry out soil mines and in between 01:00 to 02:00 in the
midnight, when he had gone to the river to procure the sand on his Tractor, at
that time, he saw that a Swaraj Tractor alongwith a trolly attached to it, which
was rashly driven by co-accused Kalu Bhilala with an intention to kill both the
deceased, ran over the Tractor on both the deceased, who were sleeping and
behind him was Ballabh Dangi(present appellant) who came driving JCB and
with the help of its escalator, he pressed the deceased as a result of which both
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 01-11-2023
03:47:28
the deceased persons died on the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the case. Neither, the name of the appellant is mentioned in
the FIR nor in the Dehati Nalishi. Balwant Singh(PW5), who was the eye-
witness has not stated anything against the present appellant which shows that
the present appellant had driven the Tractor and committed the alleged offence.
There is no allegation of killing the deceased against the present appellant. This
appeal is of the year 2020. However, final disposal of this appeal will take
considerable time. Hence, it is prayed that the substantive jail sentence of the
appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
submission by submitting that the presence of the present appellant as well as
co-accused persons at the spot was proved. Custody period of appellant is
less. However, he prays for rejection of the application for suspension of
sentence.
6. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case so
also to the fact that the final disposal of this appeal will take considerable long
time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I.A.
No.14804/2023 is allowed and it is directed that upon depositing the fine
amount (if not already deposited) and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the substantive jail sentence of
the appellant shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal and he shall
be released on bail. He shall appear before the concerned trial Court firstly on
21.12.2023 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed in this behalf.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 01-11-2023
03:47:28
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 01-11-2023
03:47:28
