Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramniwas Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 May, 2024

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 6774 of 2021
(NARENDRA SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

CRA/06089/2021, CRA/06233/2021, CRA/06751/2021, CRA/03210/2022
Dated : 30-05-2024
Shri D.R.Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Arjun Sharma - Advocate

for appellant -Narendra Sharma.
Shri Harshit Sharma - Advocate for appellant -Mahesh Sharma @
Mahesh.
Shri A.K.Jain - Advocate for appellants - Vasudev Pujari & Ramniwas

Sharma.
Shri Anand Purohit - Advocate for appellant - Girraj Shukla.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.

PER JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
I.A.No.17087 of 2022, 1st application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.
filed on behalf of appellant - Narendra Sharma in Criminal Appeal No.6774 of
2021, I.A.No.4340 of 2023, 1st application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. filed
on behalf of appellant - Mahesh Sharma @ Mahesh in Criminal Appeal No.6089
of 2021, I.A.No.10523 of 2024, 4th application under Section 389(1) of

Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant Vasudev Pujari in Criminal Appeal No.6233
of 2021, I.A.No.3431 of 2023, 1st application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant Girraj Shukla in Criminal Appeal No.6751
of 2021 & I.A.No.2094 of 2024, 1st application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant Ramniwas Sharma in Criminal Appeal
No.3210 of 2022, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail are being
Signature Not Verified
decided by this common order.
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 01-06-2024
10:35:21 AM
2.Heard on aforesaid I.As. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
2
3.All the appellants except appellant Vasudev Pujari have been convicted
under Sections 302/149 (on two counts), 148, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25
(1-B) and 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
with fine of Rs.10,000/- on each count, 3 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-, life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and
5 years R.I. with fine of Rs.5000/- respectively and appellant Vasudev Pujari
has been convicted under Sections 302/149 (on two counts), 147 and 120-B of
IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- on
each count, 2 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- and life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.10,000/- respectively with default stipulations vide impugned judgment dated

16.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, and Special Judge
(Electricity Act) Gwalior in S.T.No.147 of 2015.
4.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 28.12.2014, complainant
Babu Singh Rana for purchasing articles in relation to thirteenth day ceremony
of his mother-in-law had gone to Morar alongwith Rajendra Singh Rana, Pritam
Singh Rana, Betal Singh, Satendra Singh, Tilak Singh, Devaram and Bhupendra
and after purchasing the articles, they were returning by motorcycles and
tractor-trolly. As soon as they reached near the field of Soni, one Scorpio and
Swift vehicles were standing on road from which accused Ghanshyam, Shailu,
Vijay, Monu, Banti @ Ajay, Pawan Panda r/o village Gurri, Mahesh Baroliya,
Banti Baroliya, Ramniwas Sharma, Rajesh Katare, Basudev Pujari and four-five
others armed with deadly weapons alighted and with intention to kill Rajendra
Rana and Pritam Singh Rana started firing indiscriminately. Rajendra and Pritam
Singh sustained four-five gunshots each and fell down from the motor-cycle.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD Pawan Panda armed with 315 bore gun, Mahesh Baroliya, Shailu @ Vijay and
Signing time: 01-06-2024
10:35:21 AM
3
Monu with 315 bore Adhiya, Ghanshyam, Banti Baroliya, Ramniwas Sharma,
Banti @ Ajay, Vasudev Pujari, Rajesh Katare armed with katta started firing.
Complainant Babu Singh and others to save themselves started running. The
accused persons thereafter by their vehicles went towards Gwalior, then
members of the complainant party came close to Rajendra and Pritam and
found that both have died. According to the complainant, there was enmity
between complainant party and accused persons. On the date of incident,
Mahesh Baroliya, his son Bunty, Shailu @ Vijay, Pawan, Monu, Banti @ Ajay
had gone to Roopendra Singh Rana where accused persons had threatened his
son Vikram and daughter Raghni to kill Rajendra. The incident was witnessed
by complainant Babu Singh, Betal Singh, Devaram Rana, Satyendra Singh,
Roopendra Singh, Meena Devi, Tilak Singh and others. On the report of the
complainant, crime No.276/2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 120-B of
IPC was registered at Police Station Bijoli 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
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submit that the learned

trial Court has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct
perspective. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant- Narendra that his
name was not mentioned in the FIR and he is resident of Datia whereas place of
incident is Gwalior, therefore, identification is not reliable. No specific overt act
Signature Not Verified
is revealed from the evidence. Prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses.
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 01-06-2024
10:35:21 AM
The seizure of Katta from the possession of appellant Narendra is doubtful.
4
Report of ballistic expert is also doubtful. Empty cartridges were having marks
of rifle and they cannot be fired from Katta. Test identification parade has been
conducted after three months of incident and after 45 days of arrest.
6.It is submitted by learned counsel for appellants Girraj, Ramniwas,
Vasudev and Mahesh that there is material contradictions and omissions as
regards documentary and oral evidence that renders the testimony of
prosecution witnesses and veracity of prosecution case doubtful. Co-accused
Subhash Sharma and Pawan Sharma have been given benefit of suspension of
sentence by this Court vide order dated 2.2.2023 and 25.11.2022 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.6089/2021 and case of appellants is identical to that of
aforesaid co-accused. It is further submitted that appellant Mahesh is 64 years
old. It is further submitted that appellant- Narendra has remained in custody for
1107 days, appellant- Girraj for 262 days, appellant- Ramniwas for 2326 days,
appellant Vasudev for 2359 days and appellant Mahesh has remained in custody
for 2087 days during trial and thereafter since the date of judgment i.e.
16.9.2021 they are in custody. 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.
7.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State, while supporting

the judgment impugned submits that satisfactory explanation of delay in conducting test identification parade has been given which is on record. Though name of appellant Narendra has not been mentioned in the FIR, but in the FIR (Ex.P/7) it has been mentioned that 4-5 other accused were also present on the

SOODAN PRASAD scene of crime, but they were not known to the witnesses, therefore,

identification parade has been conducted vide Ex.P/9 in which present appellants Narendra and Girraj have been identified. Co-accused Subhan Sharma and Pawan Sharma have been granted suspended of sentence on the ground that they were not present at the scene of crime. The charge against both the accused was of having over their licensee gun to unauthorized persons, but the case of present appellants is different and direct evidence against the present appellants is on record. It cannot be said that omnibus allegations are on record against present appellants as the incident took place all of a sudden and during the course of occurrence, prosecution witnesses Babu Singh (PW-

5), Betal Singh (PW-6), Rupendra Singh (PW-7), Smt. Meena Devi (PW-8), Devaram Singh Rana (PW-9) and Tilak Singh (PW-10) hided themselves in order to save them and in such situation they cannot be expected to depose overt act of each & every accused as well as details of arms carried by them, moreso their examination has been conducted after a considerable duration. The omissions and contradictions are not material looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Aforesaid prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution version and their evidence cannot be discarded per se on the ground that they are related witnesses when their presence on the scene of crime is beyond doubt and since these witnesses hided themselves, therefore, they did not sustain any injury. Incriminating articles have been seized from the present appellants and ballistic report is also in favour of the prosecution. Therefore, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the applications for suspension of sentence.

8.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the

record, keeping in view the fact that case of present appellants is not akin to co-

accused Subhash Sharma and Pawan Sahrma, who were admittedly not present

on the scene of crime at the time of occurrence, and evidence with regard to present appellants, coupled with the manner and gravity of the offence, in our considered opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence to the appellants.

9.Accordingly, aforesaid I.As. are dismissed.

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.6089 of 2021, 6233 of 2021, 6751 of 2021 & 3210 of 2022.

                   (VIVEK RUSIA)                                      (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
                       JUDGE                                                  JUDGE

               ms/-