Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhura @ Gajendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1 CRA-7948-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7948 of 2024
(BHURA @ GAJENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 28-03-2025
Shri Amit Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri K.S. Patel - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.16900/2024 , 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 sole appellant - Bhura @
Gajendra.
Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
307 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years with
fine of Rs.5000/-, with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 29.06.2024 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge
Khurai, District Sagar (M.P.) in S.T. No.02/2023.
This first application for seeking suspension of sentence has been
argued on the grounds that appellant has been implicated on incorrect facts
for the reason of enmity between the parties. There was only one injured
person in this case to whom numerous injuries are shown to have been
caused, but most of these injuries are simple in nature and X-ray report (Ex.-
P/15) reflects that only two fractures were found in the neck of right fibula
and in third metacarpal bone of left hand and both these parts are the non-
vital part of the body. It is argued that Dr. Vikrant Gupta (PW-4) has,
though, observed that injury Nos.1 to 4 were dangerous to life, but his
2 CRA-7948-2024
opinion is not supported with any scientific investigation, as the X-ray report
(Ex.-P/15) clarifies that there were no other fracture in the body of victim. It
is also submitted that victim was heavily drunk at the time of incident as
reflected from his MLC report and the statements of doctor and even the
victim has admitted this fact in his cross-examination. Further submission is
that there was no amount of money due from appellant to the victim, still he
falsely claimed in dehati nalishi, that appellant was not returning his money
regarding the job of ploughing with tractor. It is also argued that the
testimony of victim has not been corroborated by any independent witness.
Therefore, a request has been made to allow the application for suspension
of sentence.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application on the
ground that weapons of offence were recovered from all the convicts and
they all tested positive for presence of blood. It is argued that the weapons
were deadly for the reason of their size and nature and as many as 18 wounds
were caused to the victim of which some were found to be dangerous to life.
A request has, therefore, been made to dismiss this application.
Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and the record
has bee perused.
Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the record, this Court is
of the considered opinion that till disposal of this appeal, execution of jail
sentence awarded to the appellant under the impugned judgment deserves to
be suspended. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, this
application is allowed.
3 CRA-7948-2024
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the
appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail for
securing his presence before the trial Court concerned on 09.07.2025 and on
such other dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of this
appeal.
Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.
List alongwith Cr.A. No.8900/2024.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
sjk
