Dharmendra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15614 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dharmendra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 May, 2024

                                                       1
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT GWALIOR
                                               CRA No. 12004 of 2023
                                    (DHARMENDRA YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            CRA/12416/2023, CRA/12551/2023
               Dated : 27-05-2024
                           Shri Harish Sharma - Advocate for appellant - Dharmendra Yadav.

                           Shri Sushil Goswami,- Advocate for appellant Shiroman.
                           Shri A.K.Jain - Advocate for appellant Bhajju @ Ram Singh.
                           Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwaha - Deputy Advocate General for the
               State.

                           I.A.No.9401 of 2024, 1st application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. filed
               on behalf of appellant -Dharmendra Yadav in Criminal Appeal No.12004 of
               2023, I.A.No.8462 of 2024, 1st application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. filed
               on behalf of appellant - Shiroman in Criminal Appeal No.12416 of 2023 and
               I.A.No.6808 of 2024, 1st application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. filed on
               behalf of appellant Bhajju @ Ram Singh in Criminal Appeal No.12551 of 2023,
               for suspension of sentence and grant of bail are being decided by this common
               order.
                           2.Heard on aforesaid I.As. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

                           3.All the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149,
               307/149, 323/149 on three counts and 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life
               imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, 10 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-, 6
               months RI with fine of Rs.500/- on each count and 6 months RI with fine of
               Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations vide impugned judgment dated

Signature Not4.9.2023
              Verified passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in S.T.No.300004
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
               of 2011.
Signing time: 29-05-2024
02:09:24 PM
                                                    2
                      4.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, complainant Mukim lodged
               a Dehati Nalashi at District Hospital Datia to the effect that they are having
               electoral rivalry with the Yadavs of the village and in the past several times
               quarrel took place with them. On account of this rivalry, when complainant,
               Gaffar, Khalid, his father Latif and Mubarak were going towards Datia from the
               village, then Mohan Singh armed with 12 bore double barrel gun, Kartar Yadav
               axe, Balli Yadav Lohangi, Sanju Ballam, Lallu Lathi, Lalla Mahate Farsa, Ravi
               Yadav axe, Siroman armed with Lohangi along with others carrying Katta,
               Adhiya, Lathi & Farsa with common object came and surrounded them and on
               account of old enmity, Lalla Mahte inflicted Farsa blow on the head of Gaffar

               and Ravi, Siroman and others inflicted blows of axe, Lohangi, Lathi & Farsa on
               various parts of his body, as a result of which he fell down there near
               graveyard. Accused Kartar, Balli, Sanju and Lallu inflicted blows of axe,
               Lohangi, Ballam and Lathi to Khalid on his head and hands. Sanju inflicted
               Ballam blow on the calf of right leg. Both the injured became unconscious on
               the spot. Thereafter accused persons also caused Marpeet of Ramhet,
               Mahendra, Pradhan Yadav and Kusuma. Mohan Singh and others fired from
               Katta. Gaffar died while taking to the hospital. On the basis of Dehati Nalishi,
               FIR bearing crime No.162/2010 was registered at police Station Civil Line and
               matter was investigated. After completing investigation, police filed Challan.
               Thereafter, the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court. The
               Sessions Court upon evaluation of evidence placed on record has convicted
               and sentenced present appellants as referred above.
                           5.Learned counsel for the appellants while taking exception to the
Signature Not Verified
               impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submit that the learned
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 29-05-2024
02:09:24 PM
               trial Court has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct
                                                       3
               perspective. There was no evidence on record to prove the common object of
               the appellants to commit murder of deceased Gaffar, to commit attempt to
               murder of injured Khalid and to cause simple hurt to injured Kusuma, Mahendra
               and Ramhet. There were material contradictions and omissions in the statements
               of prosecution witnesses. No specific act of appellants has been attributed,
               rather in that regard omnibus evidence is there. It is further submitted that
               appellant Shiroman at the time of incident was 82 years of age and as of now he
               is more than 82 years of age. He is unable to walk and perform work of his
               daily routine. It is further submitted that appellant Dharmendra was not present
               at the place of incident and he has been falsely implicated in the case.
               Complainant Mukim (PW-1) has also submitted an affidavit before the trial
               Court on 24.11.2015 as Article A-1 in which he has categorically stated that
               appellant Dharmendra was not present at the time of incident and he had not got
               written his name in the FIR. Important witnesses Kusuma (PW-2), Mahendra
               Singh Baghel (PW-4) and Ramhet (PW-5) have not supported the case of
               prosecution in deposition taken in the year 2021-22. Final hearing of the appeal
               is not possible in near future. Appellants shall abide by all the terms &
               conditions so fixed by the Court. On these premises, learned counsel prayed
               for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
                           6.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State, while supporting

the judgment impugned submits that as per the story of prosecution and evidence on record appellants armed with Lathi & Lohangi in furtherance of their common object with other co-accused persons have commited murder of deceased Gaffar, committed attempt to murder of injured Khalid and caused

SOODAN PRASAD simple hurt to injured Kusuma, Mahendra and Ramhet. As per the opinion of

doctor and postmortem report, deceased Gaffar died due to excessive bleeding arising out multiple injuries (as many as 17 injuries found while conduction of postmortem). Contradictions & omissions are of trivial nature. Though complainant Mukim (PW-1) had filed an affidavit in 2015 stating that appellant Dharmendra was not present at the time of incident, but when he was reexamined on 26.5.2022 in relation to accused Shiroman, Dharmendra, Bhajju and Sanju, he has categorically stated in para 41 that the affidavit was not read by him and he has signed the affidavit under pressure. Complainant Mukim (PW-1), Latif Khan (PW-3), Khalid Khan (PW-6) and Mubarik Khan (PW-7) have supported the entire story of prosecution in their statement which is corroborated by Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) lodged immediately after the incident at the instance of Mukim (PW-1). The postmortem report and MLC report of other injured and medical evidence in that respect also corroborate the statement of aforesaid witnesses. Therefore, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the applications for suspension of sentence.

7.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, keeping in view the unrebutted testimony of Mukim Khan (PW-1), Latif Khan (PW-3), Khalid Khan (PW-6) and Mubarik Khan (PW-7) and corroboration of their testimony by Dehati Nalishi lodged without any undue delay and medical evidence, in our considered opinion, no ground is made out for grant of suspension of sentence to appellants Dharmendra Yadav and Bhajju @ Ram Singh, however, having regard to the age of appellant Shiroman which is more than 82 years of age, in the obtaining facts & circumstances of the case, but without commenting upon the merits of the case, in our considered opinion,

appellant Shiroman is entitled for grant of suspension of sentence.

8.Accordingly, I.A.Nos. 9401 of 2024 & 6804 of 2024 are dismissed

a n d I.A.No. 8462 of 2024 stands allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant Shiroman shall remain suspended during pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

9.Appellant- Shiroman is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 23.10.2024 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.

10.Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.

A copy of this order be placed in Criminal Appeal Nos.12416 of 2023 & 12551 of 2023.

                   (VIVEK RUSIA)                                      (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
                       JUDGE                                                  JUDGE

               ms/-