[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omdas @ Omprakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2025
1 CRA-1104-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1104 of 2017
(OMDAS @ OMPRAKASH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 17-12-2025
Ms. Sharmila Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Per : Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.8519/2025, fourth 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 appellant- Omdas @ Omprakash S/o Mohandas. First application was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.08.2018. Second application was
dismissed on merit vide order dated 23.07.2021 and third application was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.02.2023.
The appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 in alternative
302/34, 302/34 of IPC and Section 25(1)(1-B) of the Arms Act and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,500/- life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,500/- and 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-
with usual default stipulation.
As per prosecution case that on 27.11.2015, when deceased Ishwar and
Jaswant were coming back after attending a marriage function accompanied
by Phoolsingh (PW-1), they were attacked at around 10.00 PM in the night
by appellant and another co-accused with swords due to previous enmity.
2 CRA-1104-2017
The incident had occurred when deceased and Phoolsingh (PW-1) had
stopped for tea at a shop on way-back. Both Ishwar and Jaswant succumbed
to their injuries whereas Phoolsingh (PW-1), father of Jaswant fled from the
spot and lodged Dehati Nalishi the same night because in para-9, Phoolsingh
(PW-1) has stated that he had appended his signatures on the next day.
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. The trial Court has not appreciated the
evidence in its right perspective in recording the conviction and sentence
against the appellant. There are material contradictions and omissions in the
statement of the witnesses. Impugned judgment has been passed ignoring
serious infirmities and anomalies. Injuries found on the body of the deceased
are caused by hard and blunt object whereas the appellant has allegedly
caused injury by sharp edged weapon. For this she has drawn attention of
this Court to the statement of Phoolsingh (PW-1) and also Dr.Pankaj Baghel
(PW-11). It is further submitted that present appellant has so far suffered jail
incarceration of 10 years. The appeal being of the year 2017 is not likely to
be heard finally in near future. Appellant has fair chances of success in this
appeal. Hence, under such circumstances prayer is made for suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned 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
3 CRA-1104-2017
against the present appellant. He has vehemently opposed the prayer and
submits that earlier all the contentions raised were considered while passing
the order on merit. There is not change in circumstances. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the application for suspension of sentence.
Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar and perused
the record.
Considering the factual backdrop and looking to fact that this is a case
where two persons have lost their life, prosecution case is supported by eye
witness along with medical evidence on record, all these arguments have
already been considered in the earlier application while passing the order on
23.07.2021, we are not inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of
sentence to the appellant. Accordingly, I.A.No.8519/2025 is dismissed.
I.A.No.8520/2025 an application for urgent hearing also stands
disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ
