Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaptan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-7869-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7869 of 2022
(KAPTAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 06-05-2025
Shri Hemant Singh Rana- learned Counsel for appellants.
Shri Deependra Singh Kushwah- learned Additional Advocate General
for respondent- State.
Shri Virendra Singh Pal- learned Counsel for complainant.
Heard on IA No. 9497 of 2025 , which is second application under
Section 389 of CrPC moved on behalf of appellant No.1- Kaptan Singh
seeking suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. His first application
was dismissed as withdrawn vide order 16th of February, 2024.
2. Vide judgment dated 26th of August, 2022 passed by Eighth
Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 6400080
of 2015, present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
FINE WITH DEFAULT
SECTION SENTENCE
STIPULATIONS
148 of IPC 1 Year's RI Rs.1,000/-
302 of IPC L.I. Rs.25,000/-
307/149 of IPC 7 Years' RI Rs.5,000/-
324/149 of IPC (two 2-2 Years'
Rs.2,000/- each
counts) RI
323/149 of IPC (two 6-6 months
Rs.1,000/- each
counts) RI
25(1)(1-B)(A) of the
1 Year's RI Rs.2,000/-
Arms Act
27 of the Arms Act 2 Years' RI Rs.3,000/-
2 CRA-7869-2022
3. Allegation against present appellant Kaptan Singh, as per
prosecution case, in short, is that on the alleged date of incident i.e. 27th of
October, 2014, around 05:30 in the evening, appellant Kaptan Singh armed
with a country-made pistol along with other co-accused armed with deadly
weapons like 315 bore country-made gun (katta) , farsa and lathi with
common intention reached near the house of complainant Albel Singh (PW-
4) in Village- Sihara and hurled abuses. When complainant objected,
appellant- accused Kaptan Singh fired at Hakim Singh with country-made
pistol with intention to kill him, which hit the chest of Hakim Singh, as a
result of which, he succumbed to injury.
4. The main contention of learned Counsel for the appellants that
appellant- Kaptan Singh has not caused any injury to the deceased. He has
falsely been implicated in the case. He has already suffered six years and 10
months of jail incarceration as pre and post trial confinement. He is 75 years
old and infirm person. No useful purpose will be served by remaining the
appellant in jail for an indefinite period. There are so many contradictions
and omissions in the prosecution witnesses. Co-accused- Patiram fired
gunshot at Hakim Singh and the prosecution witnesses turned hostile in
relation to co-accused- Patiram. Prosecution witnesses have adopted pick and
choose theory against the present appellant. Prosecution has failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hearing of appeal shall take some time.
Appellant is ready and willing to abide by all conditions as imposed by this
Court. Hence, prayed for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State ably assisted by
3 CRA-7869-2022
learned Counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer of present appellant
by supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It
is submitted that on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence
including medical evidence available on record, the prosecution has found
appellant guilty of alleged offence. It is further submitted that appellant
Kaptan Singh is the main accused, who had fired gunshot at deceased Hakim
Singh due to which deceased Hakim Singh succumbed to injuries. It is
further contended that application (IA No. 2589 of 2025) of appellant No.3
Dharmendra Singh who had sought suspension of jail sentence, has already
been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court after arguing for a while vide
order dated 18th of March, 2025. Therefore, appellant is not entitled to get
benefit of suspension of jail sentence. Hence, prayed for rejection of
application.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. On perusal of record, it is clear that there is direct evidence against
present appellant Kaptan Singh who, with intention to kill, fired gunshot at
deceased Hakim Singh with a country-made pistol and the said pistol was
seized from his possession. From the record, it is also apparent that in the
alleged incident, seven other persons also got injured. So far as the
contention of appellant that he is an old person, aged around 75 years is
concerned, it was found from the record that at the time of incident, he was
65 years of age and was enough mature to understand what to do or not, but
he insensibly committed the alleged offence.
8. Therefore, considering the allegation levelled against the present
4 CRA-7869-2022
appellant and the nature of offence and the manner in which, he has
committed the offence, no case is made out for grant of bail. Application fails
and is hereby rejected.
9. Observations on fact, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant IA and shall have no bearing on the merits of appeal.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
