Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 5741 of 2023
(RAJENDRA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 16-05-2024
Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for appellant No.6.
Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwaha-Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Satyendra Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard o n I.A. No. 8859 of 2024, which is second application under
Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on
behalf of appellant- Pappu @ Raghuveer who has been convicted under
Section 148, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC, u/s. 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC and
u/s. 336 r/w Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to one year RI with fine of
Rs.1000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, seven years RI with fine of
Rs. 3000/- and fine of Rs. 250/-, respectively, vide impugned judgment dated
11.04.2023 passed in S.T. No. 196 of 2017 by Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Jaura, Distt. Morena.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 03.04.2017 dehati nalishi was
recorded at the instance of Hariom Sikarwar i.e. cousin brother of Girraj that
when they were preparing for cutting grains and entered the house for taking
money then Rameshwar and Rajendra came and started threatening them in
respect of cutting grains. Thereafter, when Girraj reached there and raised
objection, then Monu and Lal Singh who were carrying 12 bore gun and other
accused persons who were carrying stone and bricks in their hand tried to
assault Girraj but he ran away and entered into the house, thereafter Monu and
Lal Singh fired gun shots which hit on the head of Shatrughan who died on
spot. FIR was lodged against 13 accused persons u/ss.148, 302 r/w Section
149 of IPC, u/s. 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC and u/s. 336 r/w Section 149 of
IPC.
3. Learned Counsel has read out findings recorded by the Trial Court in
para -67 in which the complainant as well as prosecution witness Jaswant have
admitted in cross-examination that they are not sure that amongst 13 accused
persons who were carrying stones and bricks in their hand. Apart from that,
except two entry wounds on head, no other injury was found on the deceased.
Therefore, merely on the basis of presence, the appellant has been convicted
u/ss. 302 and 307 with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. So far as section 307 of
IPC is concerned, appellant has been convicted because one of the gun shots
missed and did not hit any one. That apart, the appeal being of 2023 is not
likely to be decided in near future. On these grounds, it is prayed that remaining
jail sentence of present appellant be suspended.
4. For ready reference para-67 of the impugned judgment is reproduced
herein below:-
67- bl laca/k esa Qfj;knh gfjvkse v-lk-3 ds izfr ijh{k.k dh
dafMdk&17 voyksduh; gS ftlesa mDr lk{kh us ;g izdV
fd;k gS fd 'k=q?ku ds mij nksuksa vkjksihx.k tku ls ekjus dh
fu;r ls xksyh pyk jgs Fks vkSj nksuksa dh xksyh 'k=q?ku dks
yxh FkhA nksuksa xksyh pykus okys yksx ,d nwljs ls 15 ls 20
QhV dh nwjh ij [kM+s gq, FksA nksuksa xksyh e`rd dh [kksiM+h esa
,d gh txg yxh FkhA mDr lk{kh ds izfr ijh{k.k dh
dafMdk&18 Hkh voyksduh; gS ftlesa mDr lk{kh us ;g izdV
fd;k gS fd og i`Fkd&i`Fkd ;g ugha crk ldrk fd fdl
vkjksih ds gkFk esa bZaV Fkh vkSj fdlds gkFk esa iRFkj FksA mDr
laca/k esa fxjkZt v-lk- 4 us vius izfr ijh{k.k dh dafMdk&7 esa
;g izdV fd;k gS fd og fuf'pr ;g ugha crk ldrk fd
bZaV fdlus Qsadh Fkh ,oa iRFkj fdl O;fDr us Qsads FksA lk{kh
tloar v-lk-7 ds izfr ijh{k.k dh dafMdk&3 voyksduh; gS
ftlesa mDr lk{kh us ;g izdV fd;k gS fd og ;g ugha ns[k
ik;k fd e`rd 'k=q?ku mQZ cVsjk dks xksyh fdldh yxh Fkh]
fdUrq mDr lk{kh us Lor% ;g izdV fd;k gS fd nks xksyh ,d
lkFk pyh Fkh rFkk mDr xksyh vfHk;qDr yky flag ,oa eksuw us
viuh 12 cksj dh canwdksa ls pyk;k tkuk ftuesa ls ,d xksyh
'k=q?ku mQZ cVsjk dks yxuk izdV fd;k gSA
5 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State as well as complainant opposes the application by submitting
that this Court has already considered the suspension of sentence of other co-
accused persons and declined to grant suspension of jail sentence to them.
6. Interim order is not binding on a co-ordinate Bench. We have
independently considered the material available on record. Therefore,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the
fact that final conclusion of the appeal will take considerable long time, without
commenting on the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that this is a fit
case for grant of suspension of jail sentence.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8859 of 2024 is allowed and the execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellant-Pappu@ Raghuveer is hereby suspended till
the final disposal of this appeal and it is ordered that the appellant be released
on bail on his depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and upon
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only)
with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court,
with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on
24.09.2024 and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry of this
Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
C.C. as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
ar
