Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 193 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                                 1                                 CRA-10761-2024
                                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT INDORE
                                                         CRA No. 10761 of 2024
                                               (RAJU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )


                           Dated : 01-05-2025
                                  Shri Omprakash Solanki - Advocate for the appellants.
                                  Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State .

Per Justice: Gajendra Singh I.A No.20114/2024 which is an application for urgent hearing is allowed and disposed off.

1. Heard on I.A No.20113/2024 which is first application under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the appellant No.4 -Ishwar S/o Rameshchandra.

2. Vide judgment dated 29.07.2024 passed in S.T. No.44/2020 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur, District -Dhar, appellant No.4- Ishwar has been convicted under the following Sections:-

Imprisonment in lieu Section Act Imprisonment Fine of fine 148 IPC 01 year R.I 1,000/- 03 months R.I Life 302 IPC 2,000/- 06 months R.I Imprisonment 307 IPC 10 years R.I 2,000/- 06 months R.I 325 IPC 03 years R.I 2,000/- 06 months R.I 324 IPC 02 years R.I 2,000/- 06 months R.I 323 IPC 01 year R.I 1,000/- 01 months R.I 25(1-B) Arms 02 year R.I 1,000/- 01 month R.I (B) Act

3. The appellant has been convicted alongwith four other persons for murder of Bhuralal and attempting the murder of Amit and causing grievous injuries voluntarily to Kuldeep and causing injuries to Prakash and Deepak on

2 CRA-10761-2024 18.03.2018 at 10:30 pm at village Barkheda, P.S Rajod, District Dhar in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly.

4. This application has been preferred on the ground that trial Court has committed error in relying on the testimony of Prakash (PW-1), Mohanlal (PW-2), Deepak (PW-4), Amit (PW-5), Kuldeep (PW-7) who are interested witnesses.

5. In cross-case bearing crime No.66/2020 complainant party Prakash, Anil @ Amit and Deepak were convicted for under Section 148, 324 (two counts), 323 of the IPC. Prakash and Anil were also convicted under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act.

6. Trial Court has committed error in not appreciating the fact that complainant party was aggressor and prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the appellant's side.

7. Present appellant/applicant is handicapped person and he cannot move without any support, causing injury through lathi and farsa by this appellant is improbable. Prosecution witness have filed the photograph of alleged incident as Ex.D/4 to D/9. There is no way of tractor from the alleged spot.

8. Trial Court has committed error in disbelieving the defence version of Sunil (PW-3), Amit (PW-6) and Motilal (PW-11) has not supported the case of prosecution. Investigating Officer has manipulated the investigation.

9. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the application by filing the reply through document No.4366/2025 and submitted that on the stick and farsa recovered from Ishwarlal human blood was found as per FSL report Ex.P/62.

Perused the record.

10. Trial Court has considered and discussed the defence of the applicant regarding the issue that complainant party was aggressor. Ex.D/1 is to the effect

3 CRA-10761-2024 that this applicant has restrained the way of Mohanlal due to which the Naib Tehsildar of Sardarpur have ordered to remove the obstruction.

11. Mohanlal (PW-2) has stated in para 29 that appellant/applicant was effected with Polio but has explained that he could move without the aid of stick. The alleged interested witness are injured also and they have stated specific role of this appellant/applicant Ishwar. Total period of custody is only 05 years 01 month and 06 days.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of custody, we are not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of present appellant.

13. Accordingly, I.A No.20113/2024 stands rejected at present.

                                      (VIVEK RUSIA)                                 (GAJENDRA SINGH)
                                          JUDGE                                          JUDGE

                           akanksha