Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-886-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 886 of 2022
(PAWAN SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 24-03-2025
Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for appellant.
Shri B.P.S.Chauhan- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.1692/2025, fifth repeat application under Section 389(1)
of CrPC moved on behalf of appellant Pawan Sharma seeking interim suspension
of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Learned counsel for appellant seeks withdrawal of I.A. No.1692/2025, an
application for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of the appellant.
The I.A., accordingly, stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Also heard on IA No.3858/2024, fourth repeat application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Pawan Sharma seeking regular
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2021 passed by Fourth
Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind in S.T. No.300246/2011.
As per the case of prosecution, on 24.05.2009, complainant Arvind Sharma
submitted a written complaint at Police Station City Kotwali, District Bhind, inter
alia, alleging that at around 10:05 AM, he and his cousin Manju had gone to the
canal bank near his brother-in-law house. There arose a dispute over a drain issue
which was taking place between wife of Pappu and his sister Meera. At that
moment, Pappu armed with 12-bore country-made pistol (adhiya), Pawan armed
with 12-bore rifle, vipin armed with 315 bore country made pistol (katta) and
2 CRA-886-2022
Guddi armed with wooden stick (lathi) in her hand. His brother was standing at the
back door of house of brother-in-law. Pappu told them to go up to the roof, and all
of them went up. Thereafter, Pappu told his son Pawan (present appellant) "Shoot
these bastards". Pawan fired a gunshot at his brother Manju, which hit on the left
side of his chest, and he felt backward. Then, Pappu fired a shot at him, which
went over his head. At that point, Guddi (wife of Pappu) said "shoot them all as
this daily trouble will be over". Then, Vipin fired his country made pistol at his
sister Meera with intention to kill her, but shot went over her head. Hearing the
gunshots, his brother-in-law Awadh Alias Poshaki, Kallu and other arrived and
witnessed the incident. Accused fled away. He saw that his brother Manju was
bleeding and died on spot. On such allegations, Police Station City Kotwali, Bhind
registered FIR at crime No.172/2009 for offence punishable under Sections 302
and 307/34 of IPC was registered against appellant. Charge sheet has been
submitted before the competent Court.
Learned counsel for appellant submitted that impugned judgment passed by
learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures and surmises. The learned
Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the present
appellant without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. The prosecution
is unable to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further
submitted that trial Court in Para 54 disbelieved the written report (ExP-3) and FIR
(ExP-2). It is further submitted that PW-2 Arvind Sharma, who lodged the FIR in
his evidence deposed that he lodged FIR with the consultation of his family
members. Learned trial Court held that evidence of PW-2- Arvind, PW-14 Meera
is not reliable with regard to Ex.P2 and Ex.P-3. Learned counsel further submitted
that appellant has falsely implicated in this case. Appellant has already suffered
3 CRA-886-2022
incarceration for almost four years. There is no likelihood of early hearing of
appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on
bail.
Per contra , learned Counsel for respondent-State opposes the application
and prays for its rejection and submits that PW-2 Arvind, PW-3- Kallu @ Umesh
Sharma and PW-14 Meera Bharadwaj supported the prosecution story. Learned
counsel referred the statement of Dr. C.R. Raje ( PW-1) in which, he clearly stated
that death of deceased was caused due to gunshot injury. In view of the direct
evidence available on record, impugned judgment does not suffer from any
illegality and factual infirmity, therefore, appellant does not deserve to be released
on bail.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of record
and also considering the evidence of PW-1 Dr. C.R. Raje, PW-2 Arvind, PW-3-
Kallu @ Umesh Sharma and PW-14 Meera Bharadwaj, no case is made out for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant.
Consequently, I.A. No.3858/2024 stands dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
*AVI*
