Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mor Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 11048 of 2019
(MOR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 15-02-2024
Shri Manoj Saxena - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Amit Rawal - Government Advocate for respondent / State.
Heard on I.A. No.1859 of 2024, which is the second application filed
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of
appellant No.1 Mor Singh; I.A. No.1860 of 2024, which is an application on
behalf of appellant No.5 Kanchibai @ Kanchanbai.
2. The appellants stand convicted under sections 341, 147, 148,
323/149, 307/149 and 302/149 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo one
month RI, one year RI, two years RI, One year RI, Five years RI and Life
Imprisonment with fine of Rs 500 and 2000/- with usual default stipulation.
3. As per prosecution story, on 28.08.2016 dispute arose between Amar
Singh and appellant No.1 Mor Singh. In order to take revenge, on 28.9.2016
near about 8.30 pm Mor Singh along with his three sons and daughter assaulted
Amar Singh and his three sons. appellant No.5 Kanchibai inserted the pointed
portion of ballam on the neck of Amar Singh and in the said assault, Amar
Singh died on the spot and other persons sustained injuries. Accordingly, these
appellants were convicted vide judgment dated 10.12.2019 passed by 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge Rajgadh, District Rajgadh. The suspension of
sentence of appellant Kamalsingh has been rejected as he has a strong criminal
history. The suspension of sentence of appellant No.1 Morsingh has also been
rejected.
4. At the outset, counsel for appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.1860 of 2024, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant No.5 Kanchibai @ Kanchanbai.
5. Prayer allowed.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No.1860 of 2024 stands dismissed as withdrawn.
7. So far as suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant No.1
Morsingh is concerned, learned counsel submits that the only allegation against
the Morsingh is that he was carrying a stick and led other accused to the house
of deceased, but there is no allegation against him of causing injury to the
deceased. He was on bail during trial. Appellant No.1 is aged about 72 years.
Jail sentence of co-accused Kailash @ Ramkailash has been suspended and has
been enlarged on bail vide order dated 06/10/2023 passed by this Court in
similar circumstances. Hence, he prays that remaining jail sentence of the
present appellant be suspended.
8. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer and
prays for rejection of the application.
9. Considering the aforesaid, without commenting anything on the merits
of the case, the application for suspension of sentence (I.A. No.1859 of 2024)
is allowed and it stands closed. It is directed that subject to deposit of the fine
amount, if not already deposited, with the trial Court and on furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with a
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court, the execution of remaining
custodial part of sentence of the appellant Morsingh shall remain suspended, till
final disposal of this appeal. The appellant Morsingh after being enlarged on bail
shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 04.11.2024 and on
all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this behalf.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Anushree
