Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-5445-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 5445 of 2023
(SATENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-08-2025
Shri Amit Lahoti - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Saket Udainiya - PP for the respondent/State.
Shri Shashi Bhushan Khare - Advocate for the complainant.
Heard on I.A.No.10830/2025, second application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant -
Satendra. His first application (I.A.No.14000/2023) was dismissed on merits on
14-03-2024.
This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 11-04-2023 passed in
S.T.No.112/2015 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha District Datia
whereby appellant has been convicted as under:
Section Imprisonment Fine
302/34 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/-
with default stipulation
25(1-b)(a) of 1 year's RI Rs.1,000/- with default
Arms Act stipulation
It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court
erred in convicting and awarding jail sentence to the appellant. Appellant already
suffered 3 years 5 months as pre and post trial confinement. It is further
submitted that except eye-witnesses Ramdevi (PW-1) and Lakhan (PW-2) all
witnesses did not support the story of prosecution and declared hostile. It is
further submitted that as per eye witness account appellant wielded 12 bore Katta
to inflict firearm injury to the deceased Dashrath but ballistic report does not
2 CRA-5445-2023
conclusively opine against the appellant. Therefore, on the basis of ballistic
report, case of appellant be considered for bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submits
that eye witness account goes against the appellant. Ramdevi (PW-1) and Lakhan
(PW-2) categorically mentioned the presence of appellant using firearm to inflict
injury to the deceased Dashrath. Besides that, the date of incident is 05-09-2014
and appellant was arrested on 27-04-2015 and on the same day weapon from the
possession of appellant was recovered. Sufficient period was passed between the
date of incident and date of arrest. Even ballistic report (Ex-P/30) does not
conclusively opine in favour of the present appellant. One cartridge EC-5 was
fired from the country made pistol (Ex-A1) does not conclusively opine that said
cartridge was fired from the weapon seized from the appellant. Therefore, another
cartridge if not matched with the weapon used then it does not conclusively infer
in favour of the appellant. Appellant bears criminal record of 9 cases including
one case of Section 307 of IPC. Thus, prayed for dismissal of application for
suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and submits that
because of nature of evidence and criminal record, application preferred by the
appellant seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail be rejected.
Heard. Record perused.
This is a case where appellant is convicted for offence under Section 302
of IPC. Mother of deceased namely Ramdevi (PW-1) in her examination-in-chief
held on 19-01-2016 categorically mentioned the name and role of the appellant -
Satendra for inflicting gunshot injury to his son Dashrath. After examination -in-
chief was completed, it appears that counsel for accused sought adjournment to
cross-examine the witness. Later on, she was cross-examined on 15-02-2016 and
3 CRA-5445-2023
in her cross-examination she referred the role of the appellant and supported the
case of prosecution. Even Lakhan (PW-2) also supported the case of prosecution
when his examination-in-chief was held on 19-01-2016. Thereafter, on 17-03-
2016 his cross-examination was started in which he stood firm and supported the
story of prosecution. Therefore, eye-witnesses account goes against the appellant.
So far as ballistic report is concerned, four cartridges were found to be
those cartridges which were not fired from the weapon seized from the possession
of appellant. However regarding one cartridge ballistic report remained
inconclusive.
Looking to the eye-witness account which specifically refers the name of
appellant and ocular evidence is to be given due weightage in given set of facts,
therefore, the application preferred by the appellant seeking suspension of
sentence and grant of bail is hereby rejected at this stage.
It is made clear that appreciation of evidence made above is only for
consideration of application for suspension of sentence and matter shall be heard
on its own merits at the time of final hearing.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
Anil*
