Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devichandra Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3995 of 2022
(DEVICHANDRA AHIRWAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 04-03-2024
Shri D.K. Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Seema Jaiswal - Panel lawyer for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.4633/2024, which is fourth application filed by the
appellant No.3 Balchandra @ Billa for suspension o f sentence. His first
application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.06.2022, second
application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 25.01.2023 and the third
one was also dismissed on merits vide order dated 04.07.2023.
By the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed by IInd Additional
Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in Sessions Trial No.39/2021 the appellant No.3
has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 7 years with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant No.3 has submitted that appellant No.3
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The trial
Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available
on record. It is also submitted that jail sentence of the co-accused persons have
already been suspended by this Court. Appellant No.3 is in jail for near about 3
years and final disposal of this appeal would take considerable time. Hence,
prayer has been made to suspend the sentence of appellant No.3.
Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and record
of the trial Court.
This fourth application for suspension of sentence has been argued on
the ground of period of custody and nature of injuries. The earlier orders
whereby the applications for suspension of sentence were dismissed reveal that
no submission was made on the earlier occasions about the nature of injury.
This time while arguing on that point, the counsel for the appellant has referred
to the statements of Dr. Vinod Rawat (PW/10) and Dr. Deepak Kumar Ojha
(PW/13). Dr. Deepak Kumar Ojha (PW/13) has categorically stated that the
head injury which he found on the person of victim was a depressed fracture
and he has further stated in his cross examination that this injury was not life
threatening. The other injuries were in the fingers of left had, therefore according
to Dr. Deepak Kumar Ojha who was giving treatment to the victim, none of the
injuries caused to the victim was dangerous to life.
Dr. Vinod Rawat (PW/10) has given the opinion that there was a bleeding
injury along with a mark of contusion on the front side of the head and he has
opined that this injury was dangerous to life. His report reveals that the depth of
bleeding wound was only 1/8inch. According to him, the victim had blood on
his clothes but those clothes were not seized. Further, he has failed to reveal
what measures were taken by him to stop the bleeding. His entire statement
does not give the indication that stitches were given to the victim to stop the
excessive bleeding.
Having considered these newly raised grounds which were not argued
earlier, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant namely appellant No.3.Balchandra @
Billa shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court with a further direction to
appear before the concerned trial Court on 16.05.2024 and also on such other
dates, as may be fixed by the Court in this regard during the pendency of this
appeal.
List in due course.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
DevS
