Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaliram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2024
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 14726 of 2023
(KALIRAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 21-02-2024
Shri Shreyash Pandit - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S. K. Kashyap - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Shri Sarvesh Kumar Jaiswal - Advocate for the objector.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No.27688 of 2023, an application under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants
Kaliram, Yogesh Sahu and Brijresh @ Bijesh arising out of judgment dated
06/11/2023 delivered in S.T. No.16/2021 passed by Additional Session Judge,
Chaurai District Chhindwara (MP).
The appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine
of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per prosecution story,
on 04/01/2020, the police received a telephonic information that the deceased
Vineet was roaming in front of house of the appellant. The appellants forcibly
taken him inside their house, closed the door and assaulted him. Due to the said
assault, the Vineet succumbed to the injuries. Criticizing the prosecution story,
learned counsel for the appellants placed heavy reliance on Para-8 & 16 of the
impugned judgment wherein the Court below has categorically given a finding
that the deceased illegally trespassed and entered the house of the appellants. It
is submitted that there was a previous enmity between the appellants and
deceased. Deceased was under the influence of liquor which is clearly from the
postmortem report. The appellants exercise their right of self-defence as per
Section 96 of IPC. By placing reliance on (2009) 3 SCC 384 Ranveer Singh
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and mere particularly in Para -16 which reads as
under :-
"8. 16. The right self-defence is a very valuable right,
serving a social purpose and should not be construed
narrowly. (See : Vidhya Singh v. State of M.P.)
Situations have to be judged from the subjective point of
view of the accused concerned in the surrounding
excitement and confusion of the moment, confronted
with a situation of peril and not by any microscopic and
pedantic scrutiny. In adjudging the question as to
whether more force than was necessary was used in the
prevailing circumstances on the spot it would be
inappropriate, as held by this Court, to adopt tests by
detached objectivity which would be so natural in a
courtroom, or that which would seem absolutely
necessary to a perfectly cool bystander. The person
facing a reasonable apprehension of threat to himself
cannot be expected to modulate his defence step by step
with any arithmetical exactitude of only that much which
is required in the thinking of a man in ordinary times or
under normal circumstances."
It is argued that the offence by no stretch of imagination falls within the
ambit of Section 304 Part- I of IPC. The incident had taken place suddenly and
appellants exercise their right of self-defence. Thus, necessary ingredients for
attracting Section 304 Part - I of IPC are absent. The appellants remained in
actual custody for about 3 years 1 month. Final hearing of this appeal is not
possible in near future. Thus, remaining jail sentence of appellants may be
suspended.
Shri S. K. Kashyap, learned G.A. opposed the prayer on the basis of
objection and urged that an axe and rod was recovered from the appellants. The
prosecution witnesses have deposed against the appellants.
Borrowing the said arguments Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the
objector added that blood stains were found on the weapons so recovered by
the appellants.
Considering the findings given by the Court below in Para 8 & 16 of the
impugned judgment and the factual backdrop of the case, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of appellants.
Accordingly, I.A. No.27688 of 2023 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of this appellants is hereby suspended and it is directed
that appellants- Kaliram, Yogesh Sahu and Brijesh @ Bijesh be released
on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the
trial Court, Chhindwara o n 29/04/2024 and also on such other dates as
may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE
manju
