Madhya Pradesh High Court
Loku @ Lokendra Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 68 of 2021
(LOKU @ LOKENDRA SINGH TOMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 29-02-2024
Ms. Prachi Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.2021/2024, second repeat application under Section
389(1) of CrPC, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf
of sole appellant - Loku alias Lokendra Singh Tomar. His first application (IA
No. 27205/2021) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.08.2023.
T h e appellant stands convicted under Sections 302/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10000/- with default
stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13/10/2020
passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior (M.P.) in Special Sessions Trial
No.08/2018.
Appellant has so far undergone approximately four years one month's jail
incarceration, as stated by learned counsel for the appellant.
As per prosecution story, complainant Rajveer Jatav while had admitted
his deceased son Sourabh Jatav on 05.10.2017 at about 08.30 in the night in
Casualty Department of JA Hospital, Gwalior, had lodged an oral complaint to
Sub-Inspector P.N.Verma of Police Station Hajira, District Gwalior that at
about 07.00 in the evening while his younger son deceased Sourabh Jatav was
sitting in a mobile shop at Rathore Chowk, Karan Tomar, Mula Tomar, Raja
Sikarwar, Aashu Sikarwar and two unknown persons came there. Karan Tomar
was armed with Katta. They started fighting with deceased Sourabh. Karan
Tomar is alleged to have fired gun shot hitting deceased Sourabh on his head
and second bullet fired at him caused injury on his left knee. Deceased fell
down on the floor. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away. The incident
is alleged to have been witnessed by his son Sunny, Sandeep Jatav and Bhola.
The aforesaid incident has occurred due to past rivalry between them. On such
information, FIR was registered. Investigation started. After recording of
statements of witnesses and collection of incriminating material, challan was
filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The Special
Judge upon critical evaluation of the evidences placed on record has convicted
and sentenced the accused persons including the present appellant as referred
above.
Ms. Prachi Sharma, learned counsel for appellant while taking exception
to the impugned judgment inter alia submits that the findings recorded by the
Sessions Court are perverse in nature. The entire judgment rests upon surmises
and conjectures. As such, the impugned judgment becomes pregnable due to
perverse approach. The appellant is innocent and has been roped in only on the
strength of hearsay evidence. The appellant has already undergone jail
incarceration of four years and one month, therefore, the appellant is entitled for
benefit of suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State while
supporting the impugned judgment has made following submissions:
(i) The complicity of the appellant Loku alias Lokendra Singh
Tomar is well explicit from the fact that his name has been mentioned
by eye-witnesses, namely, Sandeep Jatav (PW/2), Shashi Mourya
(PW/3) and Sunny Jatav (PW/7). All of them have categorically
stated about the presence of appellant and active involvement in
commission of crime in question, wherein deceased Sourabh Jatav
has died homicidal death.
(ii) Testimony of eye-witnesses has withstood cross-
examination. That apart, the statements of the witnesses are
consistent with the statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC
at the stage of investigation. Therefore, involvement of the appellant
is writ large as clear as noon in the day.
(iii) The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that
the appellant has been roped in is factually incorrect. It is a case
where deceased has suffered three fire arm injuries including bullet
injury on different parts of the body. His death is caused due to
injuries on his body. All accused persons came on spot armed with
firearms, lathi and danda, with common motive and intention to
cause homicidal death of the deceased. It is a brutal murder. The
appellant has only undergone approximately four years' jail sentence
as against life imprisonment. Hence, no case is made out for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant Loku alias
Lokendra Singh Tomar.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find substantial force in
the submissions of Shri Nirankari, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent/State. Though we do not express any opinion on the merits of the
case, but at this stage no case is made out for suspension of jail sentence of the
appellant.
I.A. No. 2021 of 2024, accordingly, stands dismissed on merits.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of instant
application for suspension of custodial sentence and shall have no bearing on
the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
yog
YOGESH
VERMA
2024.03.01
14:05:22
+05'30'
