Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharamsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 9452 of 2018
(DHARAMSINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 04-07-2023
Shri Atul Gupta- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari- Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA. No. 5369 of 2023, which is third repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of sole appellant- Dharam Singh. His first application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.08.2020 in CRA No.9452/2018 and second application for interim suspension of sentence was allowed vide order dated 24.05.2021 in CRA No.9452/2018.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2018 passed by XVIth Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.11/2016.
Present appellant has so far undergone incarceration of about five and a half year.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.07.2011 at about 7:15 AM, complainant Yogesh Jatav (PW-5) lodged an FIR at Police Station Thatipur, Gwalior to the effect that he is serving at Anand medical shop near the Station. His mother deceased Rukmani Bai, after demise of his father Tara Chand, had lost her mental balance and she used to roam around on her own at odd hours. On the fateful day, in the night, when he came back from duty, he saw his Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 06-07-2023 12:58:47 PM 2 mother going towards Mayur Market from Thatipur crossing, thereafter she had fallen asleep. In the morning, his neighbour informed that his mother died and dead body was lying to the shop. The dead body of his mother was beheaded and the head portion was not found near the body. She was in the pool of blood. She also suffered injury on her abdomen and and her intestine had come out. On such allegations, FIR Ext.P-17 was lodged and investigation was started. After four years of the incident, the investigating team recorded the statements of Hemant PW-2, Manoj PW-3 Santosh PW-7 on 25.09.2015. Challan was filed on 14.12.2015. The Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the appellant, as referred above.
Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, while taking exception to the impugned judgment, submits that it is a case of false implication. Neither there is any direct nor connecting evidence to establish the compicity of the appellant in the alleged crime. The solitary evidence against the appellant is the memo of the co-accused Narendra recorded, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, after four years of the alleged incident, wherein he admitted to have committed the crime of beheading the deceased and causing injuries on her body, which led to her homicidal death along with the present appellant. No recovery has been made from him and no incriminating material was found on the spot which could convict the appellant with the crime. Furthermore, appellant has already suffered incarceration of five and a half years. Two witnesses, namely, Manoj Sharma PW-3 and Santosh PW-7 though deposed as eye-witnesses but there is no explanation as regards the delay caused in recording their statement under Section 161 of CrPC i.e. after four years. Therefore, his ocular evidence as eye-witnesses is mere sham and intended to Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 06-07-2023 12:58:47 PM 3 implicate the appellant. Appeal is of the year 2017 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of appeal on merits. Therefore, learned Counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State while supporting the impugned judgment opposes the application for suspension of sentence submits that the eye-witnesses have clearly stated proximity and direct involvement of the appellant in the crime. It is a case of heinous crime where a lady was beheaded and left on floor with wounds on various parts of the body. Hence, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the case, but regard being had to the fact that present appellant has suffered incarceration for five and a half year and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, appellant is held entitled for suspension of jail sentence.
Accordingly, IA No.5369 /2023 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of present appeal and he be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac and Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to verification of factum regarding deposit of fine amount.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 28/08/2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of. Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 06-07-2023 12:58:47 PM 4 instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Avi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-07-2023
12:58:47 PM