Naval Singh Kamariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 13717 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Naval Singh Kamariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                       CRA No. 7490 of 2023
                                          (NAVAL SINGH KAMARIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 10-05-2024
                                 Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.

                                 Shri Rajeev Upadhyay - Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                 Heard on I.A. No.6412 of 2024, which is the first application under
                           Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of sole appellant - Naval Singh
                           Kamariya.

                                 T h e appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
                           Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act and sentenced to
                           undergo Life Imprisonment and 03 months RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-,
                           Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulation vide judgment dated11.04.2023
                           passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha in S.T. No.63 of 2018.
                                 Allegation against the present appellant is of causing gunshot injury to the
                           deceased deceased Dashrath.
                                 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 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. 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. Learned counsel further submits that
                           all the witnesses have turned hostile. The present appellant has been convicted
                           only on the basis of ballistic report which is not in conclusive piece of evidence.
                           The appeal, being of 2023, is not likely to be decided in near future. He is ready
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 20-05-2024
11:42:44 AM
                                                               2
                           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. He further submits that the statement of

Sunil (PW/3) was recorded on 19.01.2016 in which he has supported the case of prosecution. Further his cross-examination in chief was recorded after four years in which he turned hostile, therefore, it's a case of won over not on hostile as the law laid down by Apex court in case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari V/s State of M.P. reported in AIR 1991 SC 1853. 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.6412 of 2024 is hereby rejected.

                             (VIVEK RUSIA)       (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
                                 JUDGE                    JUDGE
                           pwn*