Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nilesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 March, 2025
1 CRA-2053-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 2053 of 2025
(NILESH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 27-03-2025
Shri Ritu Raj Bhatnagar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Surendra Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Shri Harshwardhan Singh Rathore - Advocate for objector.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.2663/2025, first 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 appellants No.3 and 4 - Jagdish S/o Kasturchand Kumawat and
Smt. Dhapubai W/o Jagdish Kumawat .
The above appellants stand convicted under Sections 307/34 and
323/34 (4 counts) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 05
years RI with fine of Rs.3,000/- and 03 months RI with fine of Rs.500/- for
each count respectively with usual default stipulation.
As per prosecution case, a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/3) was registered to
the effect that on 26/06/2019 complainant Bherulal and his wife Kushabai
and his son Arjun were sowing their field and Krishna Kumawat and his wife
Geetabai were on the way to the field. At that time, Jagdish, who is brother
of Krishna Kumawat, Nilesh, Ganesh and Dhapubai came their and
obstructed the way of Krishna Kumawat and started hurling filthy abuses.
2 CRA-2053-2025
Nilesh was carrying axe in his hand and Ganesh was having Darata. Both of
them have assaulted Shrikrishna on his head and left leg, which caused
grievous injury to him and he fainted. After that Jagdish and Dhapubai
assaulted him with Laathi. After that Prembai, Sapna and Bharti armed with
stick came to the spot and took part in the incident and beaten Shrikrishna,
his wife Geetabai, complainant Bherulal and his wife and son. On the basis
of Dehati Nalishi FIR at Crime No.241/2019 at Police Station Bhavgarh was
registered for the offence under Sections 307, 341, 323, 294 and 34 of IPC.
Deceased Shrikrishna was through private vehicle was taken to the Hospital
and Mandsaur and thereafter, he was referred for further treatment to
Udaipur.
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. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence
in its right perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in
the statement of the witnesses. Impugned judgment suffers from surmises
and conjectures and has been passed ignoring serious infirmities and
anomalies. It is further submitted that appellants Jagdish and Dhapubai are
old persons aged about 71 and 70 years respectively. The allegation on these
appellants is that they have assaulted injured Shrikrishna with Laathi. Tibia
Fibula of the injured has been found fractured and other injured Geetabai,
Bherulal, Arjun and Kushabai have sustained simple injuries. He further
submits that Dhapubai was behind the bar only for a day and granted bail by
the trial Court and she has never misused the liberty given to her and Jagdish
3 CRA-2053-2025
was in jail during trial for 01 month and 10 days and after that from the date
of judgment i.e. 13/02/2025 both the appellants are suffering jail
incarceration. The appeal being of the year 2025 is not likely to be heard
finally in near future. There is a strong case in favour of the appellants.
Hence, under such circumstances prayer is made for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the objector has vehemently opposed
the prayer on the ground that all the accused persons constituting unlawful
assembly in furtherance of common object have assaulted the injured
Shrikrishna as he was not willing to enter into compromise in the suit
pending before the revenue Court. He further submits that injuries found on
the body of Shrikrishna reveal that appellants were having intention to kill
him. No leniency can be shown only on the ground of age. To bolster his
submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on para 5 of the judgment by
the apex Court in the case of Shivani Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and Another
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 842 and para 8 to 14 of the judgment in
the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramji Lal Sharma and Another
reported in (2022) 14 SCC 619 .
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
against the present appellants.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4 CRA-2053-2025
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, all the facts and
circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that appellants were
involved in the incident and they have actively taken part to cause injury to
the injured persons, but looking to the fact that appellant No.3 Dhapubai is
lady of 70 years of age and almost all the time she was on bail during trial
and has not misused the liberty, therefore, without expressing any conclusive
opinion on merits, I find it to be a fit case to suspend the remaining custodial
sentence of the appellant No.4 Smt. Dhapubai.
So far as appellant No.3 Jagdish is concerned, this Court is not
inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence to him. Accordingly,
I.A.No.2663/2025 is partly allowed.
It is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already
deposited the remaining jail sentence during the pendency of the appeal is
hereby suspended and it is directed that appellant No.4 Smt. Dhapubai be
released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of learned trial Court for compliance with following
conditions:-
(1) The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 01/05/2025
and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3) The appellant shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the date fixed
for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on her
5 CRA-2053-2025
behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective. The Trial Court
shall be authorized to grant exemption from attendance to the appellant on
any date, on sufficient cause being shown [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2
of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
Where the appellant do not appear on the date of her appearance
before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown,
the Trial Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable / bailable warrants
to secure her attendance under intimation to the Registry of High Court.
The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. /
Section 491 of BNSS, 2023 against such appellant and her surety without
any reference to this Court and without any impediment of the order granting
bail. [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 3 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
On arrest / surrender in compliance with the warrant, the appellant
shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under
intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands partly allowed and disposed off.
Registry is directed to list the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Tej
