Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram Dangi (Deleted) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 9332 of 2019
(BALRAM DANGI (DELETED) AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 05-03-2024
Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional Advocate General for the State.
Heard on IA. No.22444 of 2023, third repeat application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant No.2 - Sambhu Singh Dangi.
Present appellant stood convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and
under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years' imprisonment
with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 25.09.2019 passed by Fifth Additional Judge Vidisha to
the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, in S.T. No.200300/2015.
The appellant No.2 so far has suffered incarceration of four years and six
months, as stated by learned counsel for appellants.
A s per prosecution story, the complainant is the wife of deceased
Baijnath. Her husband used to work as a labourer in the Dangi family of the
village. She had gone to Raghuraj Dangi's house for demanding wages. Instead
of acceding to her bonafide prayer for wages, he rebuked and threatened her
with dire consequences. After having suffered such humiliation, she told the
story to her husband deceased Baijnath who made a sincere request for wages
from Raghuraj. Accused persons of Dangi family took strong exception to said
request of deceased, Raghuraj and accused persons, namely, Balram Dangi,
Raghuraj Dangi, Sambhu Dangi, Rajkumar Dangi and Rajendra Dangi came to
her house at around 11 pm armed with iron rod, wooden sticks etc. and
knocked the door. No sooner did her husband Baijnath open the door, they
entered the house and started beating the deceased Baijnath black and blue with
sticks and iron rods. She tried to protect her husband but all in vain. At that
time nearby people had assembled. Thereafter, they fled away from the spot.
108 ambulance was called and the deceased was taken to the Vidisha
Government hospital and he was admitted at night. However, despite intensive
treatment provided to him, he succumbed to the injuries owing to internal shock
and excessive bleeding caused due to rapture of spleen and internal
hemorrhage.
Initially, on Dehati Nalashi, report was lodged. Thereafter, Crime case
No.140/2015 was registered at Police Station Gulabganj District Vidisha. After
demise of deceased Baijnath, the investigation was set in motion. Upon
completion of investigation including recording of statements, collection of
evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed and the case was
committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court, on appreciation
of evidence placed on record, convicted and sentenced the present appellant, as
aforesaid.
Shri Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants while taking exception
to the impugned judgment, heavily relied upon the deposition of Dr. P.C.
Manjhi (PW-12). According to the said witness, no injuries were found on the
body of the deceased. Though the cause of death was abdominal injury leading
to rapture of spleen but as per the Doctor (PW-12), the enlarged spleen of
deceased may be ruptured because of coughing and sneezing. It is submitted
that as such, for want of any injury to be found on the body of the deceased,
the story of the prosecution is falsified. The Sessions Court has committed
grave illegality while convicting the present appellant and sentenced him as
aforesaid. It is further submitted that appellant No.2 has already undergone four
years and six months' incarceration. Since it is a case of false implication,
therefore, appellant No.2 deserves to be extended benefit of suspension of
sentence forthwith.
Per contra, Shri Shukla learned Additional Advocate General, for the
State not only supported the impugned judgment but also referred to para
No.27 of the judgment wherein the medical report has been dealt with
extensively. That apart, Shri Shukla also referred to Para 4 of the deposition of
the doctor (PW-12) quoted below :
^^4- esjs er esa e`rd cStukFk iq= ckcwyky dq'kokg dh e`R;q ,CMkWfeuy batwjh ls Liyhu
QVus ls buVjuy gsEczst gksus ls vR;f/kd jDrL=ko gku ls 'kkWd ds dkj.k gqbZ Fkh A
e`rd dh e`R;q esjs ijh{k.k ls 24 ?kzVs ds vanj gqbZ Fkh A esjh 'ko ijh{k.k fjiksVZ iz0ih030
gS ftlds , ls , Hkkx ij esjk gLrk{kj gS A^^
Besides, as per Exhibit P-30 - Postmortem report, the doctor has opined
that injuries found on the body of the deceased were antemortem and caused by
hard and blunt object. That apart, the cause of death is shown to be due to
abdominal injuries of spleen. With this quality of evidence on record, the above
opinion of PW-12 is concocted and maneuvered. It is falsified on the face of
record. In-fact, the Doctor has acted in an most unethical manner while
examining the body of the deceased. He also submits that the possibility of
undue influence exercised by the accused party upon the Doctor also cannot be
ruled out, as the entire Dangi family appears to be an influential family in the
area.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions touching merits of the case, but
prima-facie looking to the evidence brought on record, the postmortem report
(Exh. P-30), dead-body panchnama (Exh.P-27) and the discussion in the
impugned judgment particularly in Para Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31, we are of the view
that no case is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, at this
stage.
Consequently, IA. No.22444 of 2023 is dismissed.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
(ROHIT ARYA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aman
