Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-8935-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8935 of 2019
(JITENDRA SINGH @ JEETU SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 14-10-2024
Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for appellant No.3.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No.25705/2024, second application under Section
389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to appellant No.3 Rakesh Singh s/o late Sunder Singh
Somwanshi. First application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide
order dated 16.07.2024 as Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma was busy in some
other Court arguing another matter.
The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.08.2019 passed by
the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, District Satna in ST
No.172/2018 (State vs. Jitendra Singh & others), whereby the appellant
stands convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with
default stipulations.
It is submitted by Shri Sharma, learned counsel for appellant that
appellant Rakesh Singh is innocent. Claiming partial parity with Ankit
Singh, it is submitted that it has come on record that Ankit Singh was shown
withdrawing money from ATM Counter in CCTV footage as proved by
Abhishek Rajan, Additional Superintendent of Police (DW-7) and therefore,
State itself had moved an application for withdrawal of prosecution against
2 CRA-8935-2019
Ankit Singh.
It is submitted that the actual eye witness is Gaya Singh (PW-7) who
has not shown presence of the present appellant as an assailant and in fact
incident took place in the hands of some other assailants and present set of
appellants have been falsely implicated. Thus reading evidence of Gaya
Singh (PW-7), it is pointed out that present appellant was since not present
and there is no mention of the fact that Rakesh Singh had hit the deceased
Brajendra Singh with a lathi, his conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law.
We have carefully gone through the record.
Dehatinalishi (Ex.P-1) makes mention of three witnesses Sheshmani
Singh (PW-6), Jitu @ Jitendra Singh (PW-5) and Akhilesh Singh. Gaya
Singh (PW-7) is not shown as an eye witness. Secondly Gaya Singh (PW-7)
has supported the prosecution case to the extent that four assailants had
dragged the deceased Brajendra Singh when Gaya Singh (PW-7) ran for
shelter to save his life. These four persons have been identified by
Sheshmani Singh (PW-6), Jitu @ Jitendra Singh (PW-5) who have been
examined by the prosecution. They all have shown the presence and overt act
of present appellant Rakesh Singh, therefore, in view of such evidence of
Jitu @ Jitendra Singh (PW-5) and Sheshmani Singh (PW-6) who are trust
worthy eye witnesses and whose presence could not be doubted by the
defence, we do not see any reason to extend the benefit of suspension of
sentence in favour of appellant No.3 Rakesh Singh.
In view of above, I.A. No.25705/2024, second application fails and is
3 CRA-8935-2019
dismissed.
List this appeal in due course.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
DPS
