Ravishankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15563 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ravishankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 May, 2024

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

                                                              1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                        CRA No. 2728 of 2021
                                        (RAVISHANKAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 24-05-2024
                                Smt. Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava - Advocate for appellant No.1.

                                Shri Amreshwar Pathak - Advocate for appellant No.4.
                                Shri Puneet Shroti - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

At the outset, Shri Shrivastava seeks time to argue on the application (I.A.No.10749/2024) filed on behalf of appellant No.1 for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail.

Time is granted.

List for consideration of said application after ensuring summer vacation. Heard on I.A.No.1575/2024, which is second application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of appellant No.4 Jugal Kishore alias Jugal for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Vide the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No.108/2014, the appellant stood convicted under Sections 302 r/w 34; 302 r/w 34; 323 r/w 34 and 427 of

IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-; life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-; R.I. for six months with fine of 500/- and R.I. for six months with fine of 500/- respectively with default stipulations.

Notably, first application (I.A.No.11414/2023) of this appellant faced dismissal as got withdrawn on 21.08.2023.

Pinpointing the dehati nalishi wherein the occurrence has been narrated, learned counsel for this appellant submits that it is axiomatic that the complainant party was the aggressor and they came to the house of accused

and fight took place between them in which the injuries were caused by other accused persons and not by the appellant. As per learned counsel, albeit the fight culminated into taking the life of two persons, but from the statement of witnesses Ramakant Kaurav (PW-1), who was also the complainant, there appears categorical admission that when the injuries were inflicted to the deceased persons by accused Karelal, then deceased shouted and only after hearing his shriek, the appellant reached on the spot. More precisely, he submits that as the appellant did not cause any injury to the deceased, therefore, looking to his mere presence on spot that too after the injuries were already caused, his application can be considered and allowed.

In contrast, learned counsel for the State submits that it is a case of double murder and the appellant even if did not cause any injury, but has been made accused with the aid of Section 34 of IPC and his individual role cannot be seen at this stage. Ergo, he implores for outright dismissal of the application.

After mulling over the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, we opine that at this juncture, it is not justifiable to consider the application on the face of material available on record especially the statements of eyewitnesses.

Accordingly, the application (I.A.No.1575/2024) is rejected.

                             (SANJAY DWIVEDI)                                          (VISHAL DHAGAT)
                                  JUDGE                                                     JUDGE

                          Sudesh