Madhya Pradesh High Court
Cheeku @ Sohan Singh vs State Of M.P. on 17 June, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 101 of 2014
(CHEEKU @ SOHAN SINGH Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 17-06-2022
Shri Rajmani Bansal and Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Ramadhar Choubey, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Vijay Dutt Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant. Heard on I.A.No.2193/2022, 12th application preferred under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and granted of bail on behalf of the sole appellant Cheeku @ Sohan Singh.
Vide judgment dt.26.09.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.216/2007, the appellant Cheeku @ Sohan Singh stood convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/-, under section 326/149 of IPC, and sentenced to undergo five years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant is in custody since last nine years and six months. In the present case only one eye- witness Yuvraj is there. Initially, he has stated in his statement against the appellant, thereafter, one application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the trial court. Thereafter, a revision was preferred, which was allowed by the High Court under the order passed in Criminal Revision No.679/2009. Thereafter, re-examination of the witness Yuvraj was done, wherein he has specifically stated that earlier he had given statement under 2 pressure. In his cross-examination he has not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, no case is made out against the present appellant. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon the order of the Apex Court dated 25th February 2022 in Criminal Appeal No.308/2022 (Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) and the orders of the coordinate Benches of this Court in Cr.A.No.387 of 2017 (Neeraj Shrivastava @ Lucky Lala and others Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh), Cr.A.No.808 of 2012 (Sammar Singh and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh), Cr.A.No.520 of 2012 (Manoj and 5 others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) and Cr.A.No.104 of 2015 (Sanjay Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) passed on 03.01.2022, 07.01.2022, 17.01.2022 and 17.01.2022 respectively. It is also submitted that the appeal is not likely to come up for hearing in near future. On such grounds, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1991 AIR 1853, has held that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. In the present case, there is ample evidence against the present appellant. It is also submitted that two empty cartridges were seized from the spot and a single-shot gun was also recovered from the possession of the appellant. Recovered articles were sent for Ballistic examination. The report of the Ballistic expert reflects complicity of the appellant. The deceased died on 3 the spot due to gun shot injury by the present appellant. On such ground, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the aforesaid orders are distinguishable on facts and in the obtaining facts and circumstances have no bearing on the contentions advanced.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we are of the view that no case for suspension of sentence is made out. Application is accordingly dismissed.
(ROHIT ARYA) (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
SANJEEV
KUMAR
PHANSE
2022.06.17
18:21:02 +05'30'