Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dataram Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA NO. 7353 OF 2025
(DATARAM JATAV VS. STATE OF M.P.)
Dated: 07.11.2025
Shri Arun Pateriya and Shri Abhishek Tiwari - Advocates
for the appellant.
Shri BPS Chauhan - Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Arjun Sharma - Advocate for the complainant.
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant seeks
withdrawal of I.A.No.16480/2025 and I.A.No.17683/2025,
applications seeking temporary suspension of sentence.
2. Prayer accepted.
3. Applications (I.A.No.16480/2025 & I.A.No.17683/2025)
are dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Further heard on I.A.No.16559/2025, first application
under Section 430(1) of BNSS for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail on behalf of appellant -Dataraj Jatav.
5. This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 26-06-
2025 passed in S.T.No.387/2014 by the Special Judge
(Atrocities), Gwalior whereby appellant has been convicted as
under:
Section Imprisonment Fine
148 of IPC 1 year's RI Rs.500/-with default
stipulation.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA NO. 7353 OF 2025
(DATARAM JATAV VS. STATE OF M.P.)
323/149 of IPC 3 months' RI Rs.500/- with
(5 counts) default stipulation.
302/149 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for appellant that
the trial Court erred in convicting and awarding jail sentence to
the appellant. Appellant suffered 5 months' incarceration as pre
and post trial confinement. It is further submitted that initially
the case was registered for offence under Section 323/149 of IPC
and even offence under Section 307 of IPC was included later
on. Cross-case was registered at the instance of appellant also,
therefore, no vicarious liability can be imposed over the present
appellant. In MLC deceased did not receive multiple injuries,
only two injuries were caused. It is further submitted that
statement of deceased Fakir Singh was also taken by the Police
but the said statement was not exhibited before the trial Court.
Therefore, that statement cannot be taken into account. Said
statement was not put to accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for
confrontation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is
a case of free fight where appellant also sustained injuries (total
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA NO. 7353 OF 2025
(DATARAM JATAV VS. STATE OF M.P.)
eight persons were injured) and on the basis of report filed at the
instance of appellant side, case was registered against the
complainant side and they were convicted for offence under
Sections 325/149 and 323/249 of IPC. It is further submitted that
injuries sustained by the appellant side were not explained by the
investigation/prosecution, therefore, case is vitiated. Role of
appellant is confined to inflicting Lathi blow, therefore, he is
liable to the extent of offence under Section 323 of IPC since it
was a case of free fight. Therefore, Section 149 of IPC and its
effect would not be attracted. Appellant has good case on merits
and hearing of appeal would take some time. Thus, prayed for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
8. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and
prayed for rejection of application for suspension of sentence.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the
prayer. Named FIR was registered against the appellant.
Statement of co-accused was taken on 14-02-2014 itself and
statements of some of the accused were taken on 15-02-2014 and
all accused as well as present appellant referred the facts in their
respective memos about involvement. Not only this, even the
deceased Fakir Singh made his statement before police on the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA NO. 7353 OF 2025
(DATARAM JATAV VS. STATE OF M.P.)
same day before succumbing to the injuries. That statement was
part of charge-sheet and it was filed in the Court. Said statement
was stated to be recorded by the Investigating Officer Janved
Singh (PW-16) as he admits in his statement that he recorded the
statement of the deceased Fakir Singh. Lathi is recovered from
the possession of the appellant in pursuance to memo under
Section 27 of Evidence Act.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that
initially the case was registered under Sections 307, 341, 323 of
IPC and thereafter when injured witness succumbed to the
injuries on 23-02-2014 (after nine days), then offence under
Section 302 of IPC was added. The injured witness Fakir Singh
(later on succumbed to the injuries) in his statement under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. referred the role of appellant. Thus,
prayed for rejection of application for suspension of sentence on
behalf of appellant No.4.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
12. This is a case where allegation against the appellant is of
inflicting Lathi blow over the deceased Fakir Singh. Named FIR
was registered against the appellant in which his role was
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA NO. 7353 OF 2025
(DATARAM JATAV VS. STATE OF M.P.)
specifically described by the complainant.
13. So far as allegation of free fight is concerned, it is a case of
harbouring common intention and thereafter incident took place,
therefore, role of appellant is to be seen in that perspective. All
the aspects raised by appellant can only be considered in final
hearing. Even the role of appellant is mentioned by the deceased
Fakir Singh in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. taken
by police and it was part of charge-sheet. Appellant suffered only
5 months as pre and post trial confinement.
14. Any irregularity in investigation does not vitiate the trial as
it does not cause prejudice to appellant No.4 and it serves the
cause of justice (See: H.N. Rishbud and Another Vs. State of
Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196).
15. Considering the submissions and going through the record,
no case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant -
Dataram Jatav is made out at this stage. Accordingly,
I.A.No.16559/2025 stands rejected.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
Judge Judge
Anil*
SANJEEV
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
2.5.4.20=b127bc1c16d2794cb53e7637ddf59a1c
KUMAR
3bd3662e8c5de5d5505a6b3e4d77be89,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
AT GWALIOR,CID - 7063522,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
PHANSE
serialNumber=32f47bd4eeec6355252187afaf37
4c08a4a7de0df055620a697876bb20374e54,
cn=SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE
Date: 2025.11.10 16:08:13 +05'30'
