Madhya Pradesh High Court
Betu @ Virendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1977 of 2020
(BETU @ VIRENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-05-2024
Shri R.K. Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate
for the appellant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Heard on I.A.No.20662 of 2023, fifth application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant- Betu @ Virendra Sharma.
The appellant stood convicted under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-; two
years' RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of
Rs.5,000/- respectively, with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Third Additional
Sessions Judge, Gwalior (MP) in Sessions Trial No.362 of 2010. All the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Present appellant so far has undergone incarceration of 06 years and 09
months approximately with remission.
A s per prosecution story, on 15.12.2008, complainant Dashrath Singh
(PW-5) made a written complaint (Ex.P-12) to Police Station University,
Gwalior alleging that on 15.12.2008 at about 5.30 in the evening, he alongwith
his brother Ram Khiladi was going on his Scorpio vehicle to Office of one
Ramniwas Sharma, which is situated at University Road. They were being
followed by their companions in another Gypsy vehicle and when they reached
in front of Office of Ramniwas Sharma, Lakhan Singh, who was already
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10-05-2024
10:04:51 AM
2
standing there, fired a gunshot at head of his brother, due to which his brother
Ram Khiladi fell down. Thereafter, other companions Ramcahran Sharma, Betu
@ Virendra Sharma ( present appellant), Onkar Sharma, Mansingh and Lalla
and Banti Gurjar and one Deena started firing indiscriminately and abusing in
filthy language. It was further alleged that Ramcharan Sharma and Onkar
Sharma threatened to kill him. Complainant Dashrath Singh (PW-5) saw the
entire episode of the incident, but he barely escaped himself. The above
miscreants also fired on those persons, who were sitting in said vehicle Gipsy,
namely, Balram Singh, Kailash Singh, Gandharv Singh and Damodar Singh. It
was further alleged that role behind the entire incident was made by Rakesh
Shukla (MLA, Mehgaon), Ram Niwas Sharma and Suresh Gurjar. On the basis
of the above written complaint, F.I.R. (Ex.P-13) was registered at Crime No.26
of 2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 120-B, 307, 294,
147, 148 and 149 of IPC. During investigation, spot map was prepared and
statements of witnesses were recorded. Safeena form and lash Panchnama
were prepared. All the accused persons were arrested and relevant seizures
were made. Upon completion of investigation and necessary formalities,
challan was filed before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction from
where the case was committed to the concerned Court for its trial. The learned
Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence placed on record, convicted and
sentenced the present appellant, as referred above.
Learned counsel for the appellant, while taking exception to the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, submits that Dashrath (PW-5)
and Balram (PW-6) did not supported the prosecution version. Dashrash (PW-
5), who is alleged to be eye-witness of the incident, had come after the incident,
Signature Not Verified
therefore, his evidence is not reliable.
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10-05-2024
10:04:51 AM
3
It is further submitted that no incriminating material is available on record
against the appellant. There is no recovery at the instance of present appellant as
well as no specific allegation of causing gunshot fire at the deceased is
attributed against appellant. There is no direct or indirect involvement of present
appellant in commission of alleged offence.
It is further submitted that learned Trial Court has not appreciated the
evidence placed on record in correct perspective and the impugned judgment
suffers from surmises and conjectures. The present appellant has falsely been
implicated in the case.
It is also submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in
the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Trial Court has
committed an error in convicting and sentencing present appellant for the
alleged offence. It is further submitted that present appellant was on bail during
trial and he did not misused the liberty so granted to him. The appeal, being of
2019, is not likely to be decided in near future. He is ready to abide by all the
terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court while considering
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to him.
On the basis of the above grounds, it was prayed that present appellant
may be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence, found proved
against present appellant as well as the fact that there is active participation of
him in commission of alleged offence. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to
be released on bail. On these grounds, he has prayed for dismissal of
application.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, regard being had to the fact that there is active participation of present
appellant in commission of alleged offence as well as nature and the gravity of
offence, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, we are of the view that
present appellant is not entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.4639 of 2024 stands rejected.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
pwn*
