Madhya Pradesh High Court
Antim @ Antram Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7172 of 2022
(ANTIM @ ANTRAM SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-02-2024
Shri Brijesh Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
Shri K.S. Tomar - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A. No.22968 of 2023, which is first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of sole appellant - Antim @ Antram
Sharma.
Appellant stands convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to
undergo two years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.5,000/- 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 of 2011.
The appellant so far has undergone jail sentence of one year and seven
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 present appellant having armed with 12 bore guns, Ramjeevan
armed with 315 bore gun which was given to him by Mehant Baba, Gaya
Prasad with mouzer, Baijnath Sharma armed with licensed gun belonging to
Lakhan Sanvariya, Babu and the present appellant 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 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 persons,
namely, Hira alias Hiralal, Rambabu Sharma and Baijnath Sharma have already
been extended benefit of suspension of jail sentence by this Court vide order
dated 20.10.2023, 0809.2023 and 23.09.2023 respectively. Hence, learned
counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Hira
alias Hiralal.
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 persons, namely, Hira alias
Hiralal, Rambabu Sharma and Baijnath Sharma have already been extended
benefit of suspension of jail sentence by this Court vide order dated
20.10.2023, 0809.2023 and 23.09.2023 respectively, in the obtaining facts and
circumstances, the appellant 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 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 is directed to appear before the
Registry of this Court first on 19.03.2024 and on other subsequent dates as
may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, I.A.No.22968 of 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
pwn*
