Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rughnath Alias Raghunath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
1 CRA-2746-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 2746 of 2025
(RUGHNATH ALIAS RAGHUNATH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 25-08-2025
Shri Vishal Baheti - Senior Advocate with Shri Bhavesh Tiwari - Advocate
for appellants.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Shri Manish Kumar Vijaywargiya - Advocate for objector.
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.7255/2025, first application under Section 430 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of
the appellants No.6 Govind Singh S/o Shri Rugnath Singh and No.9 Sujan Singh
S/o Bhagwan Singh.
Both appellants stand convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149
(2 counts) and 325/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 06
years RI with fine of Rs.500/-; 01 year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-; Imprisonment
for Life with fine of Rs.5,000/-; 03-03 months RI with fine of Rs.500-500/-; and
02 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation.
Brief facts of the case are that due to previous enmity on the ground of
property dispute on 10/06/2021 at about 03:30 pm accused persons armed with
weapons like gun, sword, iron rod, sariya, laathi, etc. laid a siege and assaulted
deceased Lalsingh to death. The incident was reported to the concerned Police
Station, where FIR at Crime No.143/2021 was registered at Police Station
Chhapiheda, District Rajgarh.
2 CRA-2746-2025
Learned counsel for the appellants while taking exception to this impugned
judgment submits that appellants are innocent and they have been falsely
implicated in this matter. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right
perspective. Learned trial Court has overlooked the contradictions and omissions
in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and erroneously come to the
conclusion of convicting and sentencing the appellants. Impugned judgment
suffers from surmises and conjectures and has been passed ignoring serious
infirmities and anomalies. To buttress his submission, learned counsel has invited
attention of this Court towards para 29 and 30 of the evidence of Pursingh (PW-1),
para 7 of Laxminarayan (PW-3), Dehati Nalishi (Ex.-D/2) and FSL Report (Ex.-
P/59). He has also invited attention of this Court towards various paragraphs of the
judgments with the submissions that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the
evidence in right perspective. He further submits that Govind and Sujan have not
done any overt act to implicate them in the offence. The appeal being of the year
2025 is not likely to be heard finally in near future. There is a strong case in
favour of the appellants. Hence, under such circumstances prayer is made for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State as well as learned counsel for the objector, while supporting the
judgment impugned submit 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 appellants. Specific role of
appellants Govind Singh and Sujan Singh has come on the fore by way of
evidence of the prosecution witnesses on record. They were part of the unlawful
assembly and were armed with laathi, therefore, their intention of being a member
of unlawful assembly is clear. In such circumstances no overt act is required to
3 CRA-2746-2025
prove. Hence, no fault can be found with with the findings recorded by the trial
Court in the impugned judgment. On these submissions, learned counsel pray for
dismissing the application for suspension of sentence.
Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar and perused the
record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, it is manifest that both the
appellants were armed with laathi and were present on spot being part of unlawful
assembly along with other co-accused persons. Vivid details have been given by
Pursingh (PW-1) in his evidence in this regard. Some contradictions and
omissions are bound to occur in natural testimony. Learned trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the appellants after due appreciation of evidence.
In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that no case for
grant of suspension is made out. Accordingly, I.A.No.7255/2025 stands
dismissed.
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
