Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2024
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 4799 of 2023
(DINESH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 08-02-2024
Shri Ghan Shyam Pandey - Advocate for appellant No. 4 Than Singh
Lowanshi.
Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No. 29850 of 2023, first application under Section 389(1)
of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.4
Than Singh.
Perusal of impugned judgment dated 24/03/2023 delivered in S.T.
No.62/2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bareli District Raisen (MP),
it reveals that appellant No.4 has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of fine to further undergo R.I. for three
months.
As per prosecution case, on 02/07/2017 complainant Hoshiyar Singh
along with his father Madanlal (deceased) reached to the agricultural field of
Dinesh where a quarrel had taken place with appellant party and
appellants/accused persons allegedly caused injuries on Hoshiyar and Madanlal
and Madanlal succumbed to the injuries.
Shri Ghan Shyam Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
complainant Hoshiyar (PW-1) in his statement before the Court has not named
appellant-Than Singh for causing any injury to deceased Madanlal and stated
that Than Singh had caused injuries to complainant Hoshiyar and Pankaj (Pw-
2). He submits that this Court has already extended the benefit of suspension of
sentence to appellants No.2,3,5,6, and 7 and the case of the present appellant-
Than Singh is almost similar to the case of other appellants those have been
extended the benefit of suspension of sentence. He further submits that in para
50 of impugned judgment, Sessions Court has recorded the findings that
incident had taken place in the agricultural field of Dinesh and therefore,
appellants can't be treated to be aggressor. He further submits that there is no
legal evidence available on record on the strength of which appellant No.4-Than
Singh can be held guilty of committing offence under Section 302 of IPC. Final
hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future. Thus, remaining jail
sentence of appellant No.4 Than Singh may be suspended.
Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer on the basis of
objection filed earlier opposing the suspension application of other appellants.
He submits that in Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1, appellant No.4-Than Singh was named
and specific allegation was leveled against Than Singh for causing injuries to
deceased Madanlal. He further submits that Pankaj (PW-2) stated against
present appellant no.4-Than Singh for causing injuries to his father deceased
Madanlal and prayed for dismissal of application.
After perusal of record, it reveals that the benefit of suspension of
sentence was extended to appellant No.7 - Bhojraj on 30.6.2023 mainly on the
ground that his name was not find place in the F.I.R. Similarly situated appellant
No.5-Ramcharan and appellant No.6-Santosh were also extended benefit of
suspension of sentence by order dated 5.9.2023. The present
applicant/appellant Than Singh has been named in Dehati Nalishi and F.I.R. and
therefore, his case is not similar to the case of appellants no.5, 6 and 7.
Appellant No.2-Chain Singh was extended the benefit of suspension by
order dated 06.11.2023 mainly on the ground that complainant Hoshiyar did not
stated in Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1 that he caused injuries to deceased. Thereafter,
benefit of suspension of sentence was extended to appellant no.3 - Tulsiram by
order dated 15.12.2023 on the same ground. The case of present appellant is
not similar to the case of appellant No.2 and 3 as in Dehati Nalishi, specific
allegation was leveled against present appellant for causing injuries to deceased
and Pankaj (PW-2) has also stated the same in the statement recorded during
trial.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any
conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, we do not deem it
just and proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant No.4-Than
Singh.
Accordingly, I.A. No.29850 of 2023 is dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
irfan
