Madhya Pradesh High Court
Malkhansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 October, 2024
1 CRA-1882-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1882 of 2024
(MALKHANSINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 03-10-2024
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate with Shri Anuj Bhargava -
Advocate for appellant.
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Shri Virendra Sharma - Advocate for objector.
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.10615/2024, first application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf
to appellant Malkhansingh S/o Roopsingh arising out of judgment dated
23/01/2024 delivered in S.T.No.202/2022 by Sessions Judge, Ujjain (M.P.).
The appellant stands convicted under Section 304 (Part-I) of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 07 years RI with fine of
Rs.10,000/- with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this
impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this matter. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence
in its right perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in
the statement of the witnesses. Impugned judgment suffers from surmises
and conjectures. This is a case where parties have entered into a free fight on
account of dispute of Sedaa between their agricultural fields. Learned
counsel by referring prosecution evidence of Bahadur Singh (PW-1),
2 CRA-1882-2024
Jalamsingh (PW-2), Tejsingh (PW-3), Ajaysingh (PW-4), Dr. Neetraj Goud
(PW-8) and Dr. Prashant Patidar (PW-11) submit that the deceased and
appellant both were armed with knife and the deceased assaulted the
appellant by knife on the neck of appellant, which caused serious injuries.
Appellant is neither aggressor rather he has acceded his right of self defence.
He has suffered jail incarceration of more than 02 years. It is further
submitted that the appeal being of the year 2024 is not likely to be heard
finally in near future. There is a strong case in favour of the appellant.
Hence, under such circumstances prayer is made for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the objector invited attention of this
Court towards the FIR, which was lodged by the appellant himself which in
itself reveals that appellant is aggressor and had gone to settle the score in
the field of the deceased Krishnapal Singh and assaulted him and
Bahadursingh with knife. Blood stained clothes and knife have also been
recovered. FSL report is also positive. It was clear case of murder, however,
the learned trial Court by showing undue leniency has convicted the
appellant only under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC and acquitted co-accused
Roopsingh, which has been challenged by way of appeal under Section 372
of Cr.P.C. (in Criminal Appeal No.1648/2024). On these contentions,
learned counsel for the objector prays for dismissal of application for
suspension of sentence.
Learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State has also supported the objector and submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellant.
3 CRA-1882-2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, all the facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, we do not find any ground to allow the application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.10615/2024 stands dismissed.
I.A.No.13851/2024, which is an application for urgent hearing, also
stands disposed off.
Registry is directed to list the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
