Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3591 of 2016
(MAAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 21-05-2024
Ms. Durgesh Gupta - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant No.1 Maan Singh seeks suspension of sentence in his first
attempt in I.A.No.10526/2014.
Appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for life with
fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 302/149 of IPC, R.I for 1 year with fine of
Rs.5000/- under Section 148 of IPC. The aforesaid sentences have default
stipulation and have been ordered to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per allegations the
occurrence took place on 23rd June, 2015 at about 03:00 P.M when all the
assailants namely Shanker Singh Keer, Maan Singh Keer, Sher Singh Keer,
Dhan Singh alias Dhup Singh and Rameshwar were inflicting injuries upon son
of the complainant namely Ramdas. The complainant Ramadhar has appeared
as PW-1 and has stated that Shanker Singh Keer and Maan Singh were armed
with Dharati. Sher Singh Keer was armed with iron Knife. Dhan Singh was
armed with iron Sword. Rameshwar was armed with Danda who came later on
and was jumping by putting his leg on the neck of Ramdas Keer. All the
assailants were inflicting injuries randomly. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that no specific injury has been attributed to the appellant Maan Singh
except to alleged that all assailants were inflicting injuries with their respective
weapons on the person of Ramdas. Ramdas in all received eight injuries on his
different parts of the body. All injuries are suggestive of the fact that the same
have been inflicted with sharp edged weapon.
As per FSL report, articles E, F, G, H are weapons which have been
subjected to FSL. Article - D is the Danda recovered from Rameshwar on 26th
June, 2015. Article - E is the Sword recovered from Dhan Singh on 26th June,
2015. Article - F is the iron Knife recovered from Sher Singh Keer on 26th June,
2015. Article - G is the Dharati recovered from the appellant Maan Singh on
26th June, 2015. Article - H is also a Dharati recovered from Shanker Singh
Keer on 26th June, 2015. As per FSL report the article - G, which has been
allegedly recovered from the appellant Maan Singh, the blood appearing on
article - G was found to be disintegrated. Even it could not be established as to
whether article - G was having any human blood or not. Blood with reference to
A group was detected on article - E, which was a iron Sword allegedly
recovered from Dhan Singh. With reference to the aforesaid incriminating
allegations and evidence on record, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the complicity of the appellant in the absence of any specific injury would
remain debatable.
The appellant has undergone 8 years and 11 months of actual sentence as
on date.
On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that the manner
in which the occurrence has taken place cannot differentiate the individual role
of the appellant. All the assailants collectively and indiscriminately inflicted
numerous injuries on the person of the deceased, thereby causing 8 incised
wounds on different parts of the body. The appellant has been convicted with
the aid of section 149 of I.P.C. The State counsel relies upon the prosecution
evidence considered in the impugned judgment of the conviction.
Rameshwar has already been granted concession of suspended sentence
vide order dated 25.04.2017 in I.A.No.23241/2016.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the FSL
report and period of 8 years and 11 months already undergone by the
appellant, we deem it appropriate to suspend the remaining sentence of the
appellant subject to his executing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial court concerned with a further direction to appear before
the trial Court concerned on 02.09.2024 and also on such other dates, as may
be fixed by the trial Court in this regard, during the pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, aforesaid application is disposed of.
Nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an opinion on
the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) (VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vin**
