Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash Kahar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-2509-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2509 of 2018
(KAILASH KAHAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 13-03-2025
Shri Ashish Trivedi - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Geetesh Singh Thakur - Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.8333/2023, which is first application filed under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, for suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant No.1 -Kailash Kahar,
appellant No.3 Kamod Kahar, appellant No.4 Guddu Kahar & appellant
No.5 - Sindhu Kahar.
The appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149 and 325/149 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 1 year, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, R.I. for 3
years with fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for 6 months respectively with default
stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
24.02.2018 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District
Narsinghpur (M.P.) in S.T. No.99/2015.
This first application for seeking suspension of sentence has been
argued on the grounds that on account of previous enmity the appellants
have been falsely roped in this case; only interested witnesses have
supported the prosecution case; complainant party was aggressor as members
of complainant party purposely went to the house of co-convict Shyamlal
2 CRA-2509-2018
and started a dispute there. It has also been argued that appellant Kailash was
inflicted injuries and during this assault Champu sustained injuries and died.
It has further been argued that in the absence of any explanation about the
injuries caused to the accused/appellant, the prosecution case becomes
doubtful and for this the decision of Apex Court in Nand Lal and others vs.
State of Chhattisgarh (2023)10 SCC 470 has been relied upon. Based on
these facts a request has been made to allow the application.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and has
argued that the incident took place in the agricultural field of deceased,
where the appellant party went armed with weapons and assaulted the
deceased causing him 15 injuries. It has also been submitted that the
relatives of deceased were present on the spot and were injured in the
incident, therefore, the testimony of injured eyewitnesses cannot be
discarded merely on the ground of relationship with the deceased. It is
argued that the house of co-convict Shyam was situated in the passage to the
field of deceased and dispute broke out when deceased along with his
relatives was passing-by, but he did not engage in any physical assault there
and the entire incident was given effect to in his agricultural field. On the
basis of aforesaid, it is submitted that appellant party was intruder and
aggressor. It is also submitted that in this case of murder, simple injuries
caused to one of the appellants cannot be given out of proportion
importance. The cited case discloses that grievous injuries were caused to the
appellant rendering him incapable to take part in the second round of incident
and there were other infirmities in the prosecution case, but in the present
3 CRA-2509-2018
case merely simple injuries received by appellant Kailash cannot raise doubts
on the prosecution story. A request has, therefore, been made to dismiss the
application.
Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
Having considered the arguments advanced by both the sides, the
evidence available in context of submissions made by the two sides and after
weighing the rival contentions, we are of considered opinion that appellants
do not deserve to be released on bail, therefore, the application is dismissed.
Accordingly, the same stands dismissed and decided.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
rv
