Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 January, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 14215 of 2023
(BALVEER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-01-2024
Shri Ajay Gupta - Senior Advocate through Video Conferencing
assisted by Shri Rajeev Mishra - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Shailendra Mishra - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Also heard on I.A. No. 28497/2023, which is first application filed on
behalf of appellant Nos. 2, 4, 6 & 7 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
and I.A. No. 29895/2023, which is first application filed on behalf of appellant
Nos. 1, 3 & 8 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
At the outset, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that he
does not want to press I.A. No. 29895/2023, so far as it relates to appellant No.
8 Girjesh Mehar.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 29895/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn in
respect of appellant No. 8 namely Girjesh Mehar.
Appellant Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 have been convicted by the trial Court
under Sections 324/149 of IPC (on two counts), 307/149 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.2000/- each and R.I. for 7 years with
fine of Rs.5000/- each, with default stipulations.
Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that during pendency
of trial, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and an application for
compounding of offence was filed in terms of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. However,
as the offence under Section 307 of IPC was not compoundable, therefore, the
matter was compromised in respect of offences under Sections 148, 506 of
IPC and in respect of the other offences, the trial continued. After completion
of trial, the Court convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences.
It is further contended by the counsel for the appellants that the trial
Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available
on record while convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offences. So far as
injured Narayan (PW-6) is concerned, no grievous injury was found on his
person and injuries on the person of injured Anil (PW-3) was inflicted by
appellant No. 8 Girjesh and appellant No. 5 Vinod. It is further contended that
so far as other appellants are concerned, they had no role to play. It is further
contended that the even a counter case was also registered against the
complainant party and subsequently, the parties entered into an amicable
settlement. However, as the offence under Section 307 of IPC was not
compoundable, therefore, the trial Court proceeded to continue with the trial. It
is further submitted that the appellants are custody and there is a bleak
possibility of disposal of this appeal in near future, therefore, the custodial
sentence of Appellant Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 be suspended and they be released
on bail.
P e r contra, the counsel for the State submits that the prosecution
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and while taking into
consideration the testimony of injured Anil (PW-3) and Dr. Hemendra Kadam
(PW-6), the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid
offence.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
O n perusal of record it reflects that there are allegations against the
appellants to cause injuries to injured Narayan (PW-2) and injured (PW-3). So
far as injured Narayan (PW-2) is concerned, Paragraph 31 of the judgment of
the trial Court reflects that injured Narayan did not sustain the grievous injuries.
Paragraph 32 of the judgment reflects that injured Anil (PW-3) sustained
grievous injury, which resulted in slight deafness. Paragraph 1 of the testimony
of injured Anil (PW-3) reflects that the injury on his head was inflicted by
appellant No. 8 Girjesh and appellant No. 5 Vinod, which were found to be
grievous in nature.
In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the role
attributed to appellant Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7, I find it to be a fit case to suspend
the jail sentence of appellant Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 and to release them on bail.
Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, the applications of
appellant Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 are allowed.
I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of appellant
Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 namely Balveer Singh, Jagannath Mehar, Vishal
Mehar, Ravi Mehar, Prakash and Ajab Singh shall remain suspended and
they shall be released on bail for securing their presence before the trial Court
concerned on 18.3.2024 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard
during pendency of this appeal, without fail.
I.A. No. 29895/2023, in respect of appellant No. 8 namely Girjesh
Mehar, is dismissed as withdrawn .
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
