[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukul Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-6032-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 6032 of 2025
(MUKUL VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 01-12-2025
Shri B.S. Gaur, Advocate for appellants.
Shri BPS Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Record of the Court below has been received.
2. Heard on admission.
3. Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.
4. Also heard on I.A.No.23098/2025, first application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant No.2 - Prahlad Vishwakarma for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
5. This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 19.05.2025 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) in ST No.13/2023;
whereby, present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Sections Imprisonment Fine
302/34 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation
6. At the outset, counsel for appellants refers order dated 28.10.2025 passed
in respect of appellant No. 4 Amar Singh and seeks parity.
7. Learned counsel for the present appellant tried to justify his stand on the
ground that alleged incident is of 20.04.2023 at around 10.30 AM and Dehati
Nalishi was written at 5.30 PM at Community Health Center Lahar. In fact, when
alleged incident took place at 10.30 AM, then intimation was given by some
person to Mobile Unit of Police Department on Dial 100 App and Constable
Girraj took deceased Rinku from spot to Primary Health Center Daboh
2 CRA-6032-2025
immediately. From here twist comes in the case. Learned counsel refers testimony
of Mahendra Singh Vishwakarma (P.W.2) and refers para 8 and 9, where witness
admits that he received phone calls at 9.30 AM at Jhansi about the incident and
immediately he rushed to Lahar and reached Lahar Court at 11.00 AM, where his
brother was lying in Police Vehicle. Counsel for the appellant refers application
for autopsy (Ex.D/3) and registration of MLC case by Govt. Civil Hospital Lahar
(Ex.D/4), where the time of the application given by police for autopsy is 5.30 PM
and time for registration of patient in Govt. Hospital Lahar is referred as 5.33 PM.
Both these documents contradict each others because if application for autopsy
was given at 5.30 PM (although interpolation is made over said document
regarding time), then how registration of patient was carried out at 5.33 PM. Not
only this, if at this time, deceased Rinku was admitted in hospital, then testimony
of Mahendra Singh Vishwakarma (P.W.2) appears to be false when he says that at
11.00 AM his brother was lying in police vehicle.
8. Learned counsel also refers Ex.P/19, which is pre-MLC report of 1.12
PM, where opinion of doctor is given for referring the patient to Community
Health Center Lahar. If the patient was referred to Community Health Center
Lahar, then instead of taking him to Community Health Center Lahar (distance is
around 15 km.), they took him to Community Health Center Lahar allegedly at
5.30 PM. Instead of taking him to Community Health Center Lahar, they took
him to Tahsildar. Series of events as narrated by the prosecution do not evoke
credence and confidence. Prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt and it is a case of false implication. Fine amount has already been deposited
and if not, it shall be deposited without delay. The final hearing of the appeal shall
take some time, and he has a good case on merits. He undertakes to abide by all
terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. Under such circumstances, learned
3 CRA-6032-2025
counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant.
9. Considering the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellants,
nature of evidence surfaced where series of events and testimony of witnesses
including Nemichandra (P.W.1), Mahendra Singh Vishwakarma (P.W.2) and Sita
(P.W.3) and apparently contradictions are being surfaced, this Court intends to
allow the application. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the
case, I.A.No.23098/2025 filed on behalf of appellant No.2-Prahlad Vishwakarma
stands allowed. It is directed that the jail sentence of present appellant shall remain
suspended during pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail
subject to verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court
concerned.
10. Present appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court
first on 19.12.2025 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
11. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Abhi
