Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pratap vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-8808-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8808 of 2023
(PRATAP Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
CRA No. 8945 of 2023
(INDAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 18-03-2025
Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashley
Johnmathew - Advocate for the appellant - Pratap in Cr.A.
No.8808/2023.
Shri Madan Singh - Advocate for the appellant no.2-Maal Singh
Dabar in Cr.A. No.8945/2023.
Shri G.S. Thakur - Government Advocate for the respondent-
State.
Heard on I.A. No.19996/2024 and I.A. No.3850/2024,
applications under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 filed on behalf of appellant - Pratap and appellant No.2 - Maal
Singh Dabar.
These appeals are filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated
23.06.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gauharganj,
District - Raisen (M.P.) in S.T. No.24/2020 whereby the appellants have
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and
Section 342/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with
fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.
2 CRA-8808-2023
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident is
mainly attributed to Indar Singh who was seen by Sukhlal (PW-2),
Ramesh (PW-3), Ranjeet (PW-12) and Radha Bai (PW-16) who have
assaulted deceased Ten Singh. This evidence in regard to Pratap and
Maal Singh is hearsay evidence.
It is pointed out that Sukhlal (PW-2) stated that he, Nem Singh
and Kal Singh brought Ten Singh from the house of Indar Singh and
after 10 minutes of Ten Singh being brought from the house of Indar
Singh, he died. He also stated that accused Indar Singh, Mal Singh and
Pratap had lifted Ten Singh from his house and had taken him to the
house of Indar Singh but in cross-examination, this witness stated that
he had seen this from his house in the moonlight. He stated that he had
not tried to save his uncle Ten Singh because they were three in number.
However, it is pointed out that this is contrary to the record inasmuch as
this very witness had admitted that he had called Ramesh (PW-3) as he
is staying close to his house when he had heard noise coming from the
house of Ten Singh.
It is pointed out that Ramesh (PW-3) stated that at 11:00 pm three
accused persons had come back to the house of Ten Singh and had lifted
him but in cross-examination, this witness had admitted that when
accused Indar Singh, Mal Singh and Pratap had taken Ten Singh, that
time he was not present. He does not know as to what happened at the
house of Indar Singh.
3 CRA-8808-2023
Dal Singh (PW-4) has turned hostile.
Interestingly, Radha Bai (PW-16) stated that it was Dal Singh and
Rumaliya who had brought her father back to their house from the house
of Indar Singh. Thus, there is contradiction in the evidence of Dal Singh
and Radha Bai (PW-16). Ranjeet (PW-12) did not identify Mal Singh
and Harish. He had only identified Indar Singh and Pratap. Radha Bai
(PW-16) had admitted that Pratap is resident of Borpani and earlier he
was residing in their village. She had also admitted that she had not seen
Pratap taking her father. Thus, it is submitted that main accused is Indar
Singh. Pratap and Mal Singh are innocent. Hence, prayer is made to
suspend the jail sentence of the appellants and release them on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Taking these facts into consideration and there are good chances
of success in appeal, without commenting any opinion on the merits of
the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for suspension of
sentence in favour of the appellant - Pratap and appellant No.2 - Maal
Singh Dabar.
Accordingly, I.A. No.19996/2024 and I.A. No.3850/2024 are
allowed.
It is directed that on depositing of fine amount, if not already
deposited and on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with two solvent sureties each in the
4 CRA-8808-2023
like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance
before the Trial Court concerned on 23.04.2025 and on such other dates
as may be fixed by the Trial Court from time to time, the execution of
remaining part of the jail sentence imposed upon appellants shall remain
suspended and they be released on bail till final disposal of this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
HK
