Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tipli @ Kapil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1858 of 2022
(TIPLI @ KAPIL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 23-02-2024
Shri R.S. Maindiretta - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Anubhav Jain - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
IA No. 4544 of 2024 for permission to change the counsel is allowed.
I A No. 11832 of 2022 is the first application preferred under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C, 1973 for suspension of execution of sentence and to enlarge
the appellant No. 1/accused- Tipli @ Kapil on bail.
IA No. 11833 of 2022 is the first application preferred under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C, 1973 for suspension of execution of sentence and to enlarge
the appellant/accused- Raja on bail.
The appellant/accused- Tipli @ Kapli has been convicted under Section
302 of IPC and appellant/accused- Raja has been convicted under Section 302
r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.
2000/- each with default stipulations vide judgment dated 22-12-2021.
Prosecution case as proved before the trial Court is that on 17-10-2017,
there was a dispute between appellant/accused-Tipli and deceased Vicky @
Santram due to parking of motor-cycle and Tipli @ Kapil threatened the
deceased Vicky. On 19-10-2017, the appellant/accused Tipli @ Kapil chased
deceased Vicky and assaulted on the neck of Vicky by sword. Vicky was
admitted to Government Hospital Lakhnadoon where Vicky succumbed to the
injuries. The role of the appellant/accused Raja in the incident is that the motor-
cycle was driven by Raja on which Tipli @ Kapil reached the place of incident.
Dr. Ratnesh Tekam (PW-9) has reported the cause of death of Vicky @
Santram Rajak due to hemorrhagic shock due to ante- mortem injuries to major
blood vessels of neck. Involvement of the appellant/accused is based on the
testimony of eye-witness Amit Karosia (PW-2) and Godhanlal Burman (PW-3)
and Sagir Khan (PW-4).
The Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
Considering the evidence regarding the role of the appellant/accused Tipli
@ Kapil, we are not inclined to suspend the execution of sentence and enlarge
the appellant/accused- Tipli @ Kapil on bail. Hence, IA No. 11832 of 2022 is
rejected.
It is argued that the appellant/accused-Raja was not aware of the
intention of the co-accused Tipli @ Kapil and he has no motive.Hence, he is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
The prosecution has opposed the prayer of the appellant/accused-Raja
also.
Considering the submissions of both the counsels, IA No. 11833 of
2022 is allowed.
The appellant No.2/accused-Raja is directed to be enlarged on bail
subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand only ) with one solvent surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
concerned Court/trial Court on 16-07-2024 and thereafter on such other further
dates as may be fixed in that behalf.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
PG
