Madhya Pradesh High Court
Charan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 2025
1 CRA-497-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 497 of 2016
(CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 02-09-2025
Shri Arun Kumar Vishwakarma - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.17209/2021 , second application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C./Section 430(1) of BNSS, for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.1- Charan Singh. Appellant's
first application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.06.2017.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.12.2015
passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, District Dindori (M.P.) in S.T.
No.86/2013, whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced
as under:
Conviction
Imprisonment Fine In lieu of default
U/s.
R.I. for 14 years (in view of Section 115 Additional R.I. for
120-B of IPC Rs.500/-
of IPC) 6 months
Additional R.I. for
302 of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.500/-
6 months
Additional R.I. for
201 of IPC R.I. for 7 years Rs.500/-
6 months
With the direction that all sentences shall run concurrently
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted and sentenced the present appellant. As per prosecution,
the allegation against the appellant is that the appellant alongwith other
accused persons premeditated and hatched the criminal conspiracy against
the deceased and inflicted injuries by means of a deadly weapon i.e. Sabbal
2 CRA-497-2016
on the person of the deceased due to which he succumbed to the injuries
sustained. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present
appellant had no motive to commit murder of the deceased. The whole case
is based upon circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness in the present
case. There is no direct evidence with regard to involvement of the present
appellant in commission of offence. The prosecution has failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt therefore, benefit of doubt ought to have been
given to the present appellant. There are material contradictions and
omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant has
already undergone about 10 years of incarceration, therefore, in the light of
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh
Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Cri.) No.4633/2021], the application
may be considered on the ground of period of incarceration. This appeal is of
the year 2016 and there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in near
future. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the
directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is
prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be allowed.
4 . Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the
application for suspension of sentence and supported the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6 . Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh
(supra) as well as the period of incarceration already undergone by the
3 CRA-497-2016
appellant No.1, we are of the opinion that the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1 can be considered.
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.17209/2021 is allowed.
8 . It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of appellant No.1-Charan Singh is
hereby suspended and he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further
direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 15.12.2025 and on
such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard during
pendency of this appeal.
9. List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shanu
