Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kirar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 724 of 2022
(RAJESH KIRAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-02-2024
Shri Jayant Neekhra - Advocate with Shri Mohan Singh -
Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Arti Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Abhijit Bhowmik - Advocate for the objector.
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants prays for
withdrawal of I.A. No.4968/2023, which is an application for temporary
suspension of sentence and grant of temporary bail filed on behalf of
appellant No. 1 Rajesh Kirar.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 4968/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Heard on I.A. No. 23941/2022, which is second application filed on
behalf of the appellants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal of this
application in respect of appellant no. 1 Rajesh Kirar.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 23941/2022 is dismissed as withdrawn
so far as it relates to appellant No. 1 Rajesh Kirar.
Appellant No. 2 Kallu @ Balkishan has been convicted by the trial
Court under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years with
fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.
The counsel for appellant No. 2 Kallu @ Balkishan submits that the
trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence on record and committed error in convicting appellant No. 2
Kallu @ Balkishan for aforesaid offences. It is contended that as per the
case of the prosecution, the complainant came to the property, which
belonged to co-accused Lalji Patel (since deceased) where a fracas took
place, as a result of which the complainant sustained grievous injuries. It is
contended that as many as 10 injuries have been found on the person of
the injured/complainant. It is further contended that it is clear from the
testimony of Dr. Rameshwar Patel (PW-8) that there were four fractures
on non-vital parts sustained by the injured/complainant. Though injury No.
10, which is attributed to appellant No. 2 Kallu @ Balkishan, reflects that
same was inflicted on the head of the injured but it is undisputed that
despite there being opinion for X-Ray, the injured was not referred for
undergoing the process of X-Ray. Thus, it is submitted that as there was
no injury caused by appellant No. 2 Kallu @ Balkishan on the vital parts of
the injured, the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out against
appellant No. 2 Kallu @ Balkishan. It is submitted that appellant No. 2
Kallu @ Balkishan has suffered incarceration of about 2 years and 2
months. Disposal of this appeal would take considerable time, therefore,
the custodial sentence of the appellant No. 2 Kallu @ Balkishan be
suspended and he be released on bail.
The counsel for the State as well as objector have opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that taking into consideration the testimony
of Dr. Rameshwar Patel (PW-8) and Dr. Rajendra Sharma (PW-12), it is
evident that grievous injuries were inflicted by the appellants on the injured.
It is also submitted that the injured had to undergo the surgery, which was
done by a Plastic Surgeon and during course of process of said surgery
various nerves as well as bones were fixed and on account of the injuries
sustained by the injured, he has incurred permanent disability. Therefore,
taking into consideration the testimonies of Dr. Rameshwar Patel (PW-8),
Dr. Rajendra Sharma (PW-12) as well as Kamta Prasad Patel (PW-2), who
himself is an injured, appellant No. 2 Kallu @ Balkishan is not entitled to
be released on bail as the injuries sustained by him were dangerous to life.
Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and on
perusal of record, the testimony of Kamta Prasad Patel (PW-2) reflects
that he stated in Paragraph 2 of his statement that the injury on the head
and back was inflicted by appellant No. 2 Kallu @ Balkishan. The said
injury, as per the judgment of the trial Court was on vital part, however,
undisputedly, the said injury was not subjected to further examination or
X-Ray. It is further evident from the testimonies of Dr. Rameshwar Patel
(PW-8), Dr. Rajendra Sharma (PW-12) that all remaining injuries were not
on vital parts of the body of the injured. As of now, appellant No. 2 Kallu
@ Balkishan has suffered incarceration of about 2 years and 2 months.
Therefore, taking into consideration, the totality of the circumstances and
also the fact that the incident took place at the property, which belonged to
co-accused Lalji Patel (since deceased), this court finds it to be a fit case
to suspend the jail sentence of appellant No. 2 Kallu @ Balkishan and to
release him on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 23941/2022 so far as it relates to
appellant No. 2 Kallu @ Balkishan, is allowed.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not
already deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial
sentence of appellant No. 2 Kallu @ Balkishan shall remain suspended
and he shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the trial
Court concerned on 14.5.2024 and on such other dates as may be fixed
by that Court in this regard during pendency of this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
