Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukul Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-6032-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 6032 of 2025
(MUKUL VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 28-10-2025
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Advocate with Shri Kushagra Shukla - Advocate
for the appellants.
Shri Saket Udaniya - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.19138/2025, first application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant No.4 - Amar Singh for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
2. This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 19.05.2025 passed
by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) in ST
No.13/2023; whereby, present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Section Imprisonment fine
302/34 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation
3 . It is the submission of counsel for present appellant that the trial
Court erred in convicting and awarding jail sentence to present appellant. He
is an old man aged about 72 years and suffered two years and six months of
incarceration as pre and post trial confinement. It is further submitted that
case is full of contradictions and omissions. It is a case where police was
searching for deceased Rinku because of commission of alleged offence by
him and when police reached at the spot, Rinku resisted, therefore, one lathi
blow was given to him over his head and he succumbed to that lathi blow.
4 . Learned counsel for the present appellant tried to justify his stand
2 CRA-6032-2025
on the ground that alleged incident is of 20.04.2023 at around 10.30 AM and
Dehati Nalishi was written at 5.30 PM at Community Health Center Lahar.
In fact, when alleged incident took place at 10.30 AM, then intimation was
given by some person to Mobile Unit of Police Department on Dial 100 App
and Constable Girraj took deceased Rinku from spot to Primary Health
Center Daboh immediately. From here twist comes in the case. Learned
counsel refers testimony of Mahendra Singh Vishwakarma (P.W.2) and
refers para 8 and 9, where witness admits that he received phone calls at 9.30
AM at Jhansi about the incident and immediately he rushed to Lahar and
reached Lahar Court at 11.00 AM, where his brother was lying in Police
Vehicle. Counsel for the appellant refers application for autopsy (Ex.D/3)
and registration of MLC case by Govt. Civil Hospital Lahar (Ex.D/4), where
the time of the application given by police for autopsy is 5.30 PM and time
for registration of patient in Govt. Hospital Lahar is referred as 5.33 PM.
Both these documents contradict each others because if application for
autopsy was given at 5.30 PM (although interpolation is made over said
document regarding time), then how registration of patient was carried out at
5.33 PM. Not only this, if at this time, deceased Rinku was admitted in
hospital, then testimony of Mahendra Singh Vishwakarma (P.W.2) appears
to be false when he says that at 11.00 AM his brother was lying in police
vehicle.
5 . Learned counsel also refers Ex.P/19, which is pre-MLC report of
1.12 PM, where opinion of doctor is given for referring the patient to
Community Health Center Lahar. If the patient was referred to Community
3 CRA-6032-2025
Health Center Lahar, then instead of taking him to Community Health Center
Lahar (distance is around 15 km.), they took him to Community Health
Center Lahar allegedly at 5.30 PM. Instead of taking him to Community
Health Center Lahar, they took him to Tahsildar. Series of events as narrated
by the prosecution do not evoke credence and confidence. Prosecution could
not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is a case of false
implication. Fine amount has already been deposited and if not, it shall be
deposited without delay. The final hearing of the appeal shall take some
time, and he has a good case on merits. He undertakes to abide by all terms
and conditions as imposed by this Court. Under such circumstances, learned
counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the present
appellant.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application and refers that appellant
bears one criminal record of minor denomination under Sections 336, 323
and 324 of IPC.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by the counsel for the
appellants, looking to the age of the present appellant, which is more than 72
years, and he is in twilight zone of life span, nature of evidence surfaced
where series of events and testimony of witnesses including Nemichandra
(P.W.1), Mahendra Singh Vishwakarma (P.W.2) and Sita (P.W.3) and
apparently contradictions are being surfaced, this Court intends to allow the
application. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case,
4 CRA-6032-2025
I.A.No.19138/2025 filed on behalf of appellant No.4-Amar Singh stands
allowed. It is directed that the jail sentence of present appellant shall remain
suspended during pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on
bail subject to verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and
on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned. Present appellant is directed to
appear before the Registry of this Court first on 19.12.2025 and on other
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
9. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
