Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balli @ Surendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 12416 of 2023
(BALLI @ SURENDRA & OTHERS Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
&
CRA No. 14123 of 2023
(ARVIND Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-08-2024
Shri Amit Goswami - Advocate for appellant -Balli @ Surendra.
Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for appellant - Arvind.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshrestha - Additional Advocate General
for the State.
Per: Rajendra Kumar Vani, J.
I.A.No.14407 of 2024, 1st application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant - Balli @ Surendra in Criminal
Appeal No.12416 of 2023 and I.A.No.10897 of 2024, 1st application
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant - Arvind in
Criminal Appeal No.14123 of 2023, for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail, are being decided by this common order.
2. Heard on aforesaid I.As.
3. Both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149,
307/149, 323/149 (on three counts) and 148 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, 10 years RI with fine
of Rs.5,000/-, 6 months RI with fine of Rs.500/- on each count and 6
months RI with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations
vide impugned judgment dated 04.9.2023 passed by the 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Datia in S.T.No.300004 of 2011.
4. The case of prosecution, in short, is that complainant Mukim
lodged a Dehati Nalashi at District Hospital Datia to the effect that they
have electoral rivalry with the Yadavs of his village and on account of
that, when complainant, Gaffar, Khalid, his father Latif and Mubarak
were going towards Datia from the village, then Mohan Singh armed with
12 bore double barrel gun, Kartar Yadav axe, Balli Yadav Lohangi, Sanju
Ballam, Lallu Lathi, Lalla Mahate Farsa, Ravi Yadav axe, Siroman armed
with Lohangi along with others carrying Katta, Adhiya, Lathi & Farsa
with common object came and surrounded them and on account of old
enmity, Lalla Mahte inflicted Farsa blow on the head of Gaffar and Ravi,
Siroman and others inflicted blows of axe, Lohangi, Lathi & Farsa on
various parts of his body, as a result of which, he fell down there near
graveyard. Accused Kartar, Balli, Sanju and Lallu inflicted blows of axe,
Lohangi, Ballam and Lathi to Khalid on his head and hands. Sanju
inflicted Ballam blow on the calf of right leg. Both the injured became
unconscious on the spot. Thereafter accused persons also caused Marpeet
of Ramhet, Mahendra, Pradhan Yadav and Kusuma. Mohan Singh and
others fired from Katta. Gaffar died while taking to the hospital. On the
basis of Dehati Nalishi, FIR bearing crime No.162/2010 was registered at
police Station Civil Line and matter was investigated. After completing
investigation, police filed Challan. Thereafter, the case was committed
for trial to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court upon evaluation of
evidence placed on record has convicted and sentenced present appellants
as referred above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the present
appellants have been falsely implicated in the matter. There was no
evidence on record to prove the common object of the appellants to
commit murder of deceased Gaffar, to commit attempt to murder of
injured Khalid and to cause simple hurt to injured Kusuma, Mahendra
and Ramhet. No specific act of present appellants has been attributed.
Important witnesses Kusuma (PW-2), Mahendra Singh Baghel (PW-4)
and Ramhet (PW-5) have not supported the case of prosecution. Learned
counsel for the appellant - Arvind submits that no seizure has been made
from Arvind. Mukim (PW-1) admitted in his cross-examination that
Arvind has not committed any marpeet. Learned counsel submit that final
hearing of the appeal is not possible in near future. On these premises,
learned counsel prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellants.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State, while
supporting the judgment impugned submits that present appellants along-
with other co-accused persons armed with deadly weapons in in
furtherance of their common object with other co-accused persons have
committed murder of deceased Gaffar, committed attempt to murder of
injured Khalid and caused simple hurt to injured Kusuma, Mahendra and
Ramhet. As per the evidence on record, appellant - Balli was armed with
luhangi and Arvind was having katta. As per the opinion of doctor and
postmortem report, deceased Gaffar died due to excessive bleeding
arising out multiple injuries (as many as 17 injuries found while
conduction of postmortem). Complainant Mukim (PW-1), Latif Khan
(PW-3), Khalid Khan (PW-6) and Mubarik Khan (PW-7) have supported
the entire story of prosecution in their statement which is corroborated by
Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) lodged immediately after the incident at the
instance of Mukim (PW-1). The postmortem report and MLC report of
other injured and medical evidence in that respect also corroborate the
statement of aforesaid witnesses. Learned counsel for the State further
submits that though Mukim (PW-1) stated in his cross-examination that
Arvind did not cause any marpeet but he stated that he armed with katta
was present on the spot along-with other co-accused persons and he was
frightening with katta and firing with it. Both the appellants have
criminal antecedents. Therefore, learned counsel prays for dismissal of
the applications for suspension of sentence.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, keeping in view the testimony of Mukim Khan (PW-1), Latif
Khan (PW-3), Khalid Khan (PW-6) and Mubarik Khan (PW-7) and
corroboration of their testimony by Dehati Nalishi and medical evidence
and looking to the criminal antecedents of present appellants, in our
considered opinion, no case is made out for grant of suspension of
sentence to the present appellants at this stage.
8. Accordingly, I.A.No.14407 of 2024 and I.A.No.10897 of 2024 are
dismissed.
9. Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding
the instant I.As. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
A copy of this order be placed in Criminal Appeal No.14123 of
2023.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aman
