[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-8945-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8945 of 2023
(INDAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 30-01-2026
Shri Madan Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Shweta Yadav - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-
State.
Heard on I.A. No.16489/2025, which is the first application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C./430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1
Indar Singh S/o Shri Bhairav Singh Bhilala.
The appellant No.1 is aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.06.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Goharganj, District Raisen
(M.P.) in S.T. No.24/2020, whereby the appellant No.1 stands convicted for
offence under Sections 302/34 and 342/34 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (fine of Rs.5,000/-) with default
stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for 1 year and R.I. for 6 months (fine of
Rs.500/-) with default stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for 1 month,
respectively.
Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that this
is the first application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant No.1
Indar Singh. It is submitted that none of the witnesses, be it PW-2 Sukhlal,
PW-3 Ramesh, PW-12 Ranjeet and PW-16 Radha Bai had seen the incident.
It is the theory of last seen which has been pressed into service to record the
2 CRA-8945-2023
conviction of appellant Indar Singh. It is submitted that there are good
chances of success in the appeal, especially when the evidence of post-
mortem doctor, namely, PW-9 Dr. Vijendra Gaur is taken into consideration,
who had found only three injuries on the body of injured Ten Singh. Thus, it
is submitted that it is a good case for grant of suspension of sentence to
appellant No.1 as there are good chances of success. Hence, a prayer is made
to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.1 and to release
him on bail.
Ms. Shweta Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate General, in her turn,
opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and submits that the main
accused is Indar Singh. The allegation is that other two accused persons had
posed themselves as police personnel and had taken Ten Singh to the house
of Indar Singh. It is further submitted that there is evidence of last seen both
at the hands of PW-2 Sukhlal and PW-3 Ramesh. It is also submitted that the
dead body was recovered from the house of present appellant Indar
Singh. Thus, it is submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned
judgment.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, PW-9 Dr. Vijendra Gaur stated that injury No.1 was around the navel
on the right hand side in the form of an abrasion, which is elliptical in shape
and there were two parallel lines, which were pattern bruises. The upper line
was 7 cm in length and the lower line was 8 cm in length and the distance
between the two lines was 6 cm. Skin under the bruise was not present and
the colour was blue. Injury No.2 was on the right femur bone below the
3 CRA-8945-2023
backbone at a distance of 10 cm in the rail pattern where two parallel lines
were seen at a distance of 6 cm and there were several small abrasions
present on the femur bone and the thigh. Colour was blue. Injury No.3 was in
the form of several contusions on the left femur bone. All the injuries were
caused by hard and blunt object. They were ante-mortem. There was no open
injury. The doctor opined that cause of death was rupture of internal organs,
resulting in shock. In cross-examination, this doctor clearly stated that injury
sustained by Ten Singh on stomach could not have been contracted due to
fall on a hard surface. He also stated that all the injuries could not have been
caused due to single fall.
When these facts are taken into consideration along with the evidence
of PW-2 Sukhlal, PW-3 Ramesh, PW-12 Ranjeet and PW-16 Radha Bai, we
are of the opinion that appellant No.1 Indar Singh being the main accused,
does not call for any indulgence.
Accordingly, I.A. No.16489/2025 fails and is dismissed.
List the case for final hearing in Part-B of the cause list as per its turn
and seniority.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
