Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 CRA-12429-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 12429 of 2024
(JAGDISH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 30-10-2025
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri H.S.Rathore - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Per : Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.13082/2025, first application under Section 430 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of
the appellant Jagdish S/o Ramaji.
The appellant stands convicted under Sections 302/34 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-with usual default
stipulation.
As per prosecution case, complainant/informer Mayabai on 19.01.2022
came to the Police Station Chintaman Ganesh and lodged an FIR to the effect that
her husband Omprakash S/o Radheshyam Parmar, her mother-in-law Tejubai and
son Anil were sitting in front of Hanuman Mandir and engaged in conversion. In
the meantime, co-appellant Rahul, Mohan, Jagdish and Vicky armed with wooden
stick and bludgeon came there and due to previous enmity with her husband
Omprakash hurling filthy abuses Rahul dealt a blow by wooden stick on head of
her husband who fell down. Mohan, Jagdish and Vicky also assaulted Omprakash
with wooden stick. Her husband sustained serious injuries, her mother-in-law and
son intervened and call was given to number 100 and through ambulance he was
sent for medical treatment. Doctor on examination declared him dead. After
2 CRA-12429-2024
investigation, vide Crime No.11/2022 offence under Section 302, 294, 34 of IPC
was registered at Police Station Chintaman Ganesh.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this impugned
judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
this matter. He is suffering incarceration since 21.01.2022 which is two years ten
months. Vikram and Mohan were extended the benefit of suspension of sentence
vide order dated 03.09.2025 and the case of the present appellant is also similar to
that of the aforesaid appellants who have been extended the benefit of suspension.
Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective. There are
material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses. Impugned
judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures and has been passed ignoring
serious infirmities and anomalies. In the present case, to buttress his submissions
he has referred to the postmortem report Ex.P-42 and paras 35 and 36 of the
impugned judgment dated 30.09.2024. The appeal being of the year 2024 is not
likely to be heard finally in near future. Appellant has fair chances of success in
appeal. Hence, under such circumstances prayer is made for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail,
regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved against the
present appellant. He further submits that the judgment is based on ocular
evidence of the witness who were present at the spot. Their testimony cannot be
discarded merely on the ground of some contradictions and omissions. Accused
persons along with the appellant after premeditation have attacked the deceased,
hence no case is made out for suspension of sentence. On these submissions,
3 CRA-12429-2024
learned counsel prays for dismissal of application for suspension of sentence.
Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar and perused the
record.
From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the wife of the appellant
Mayabai has supported the prosecution case and was present on the spot.
Corresponding injuries have been found on the person of the deceased. Bone of
the head has been found fractured which is the cause of death. Even if the
deceased has provoked the appellant, they were four in number and could have
over powered the deceased without causing fatal and brutal injuries on his person
which is apparent from the photographs annexed with the record. The evidence is
available to establish the complicity of the appellant with the alleged crime.
Mohan and Vikram were granted suspension of sentence, but the ground of parity
cannot be the basis to grant similar benefit to the appellant, as he has brutally
assaulted the deceased which is apparent from the medical report along with the
photographs available on record.
In light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that no case for
suspension of sentence is made out. Accordingly, I.A.No.13082/2025 stands
dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ
