Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2025
1 CRA-2370-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 2370 of 2022
(MAHENDRA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 20-05-2025
Smt.Sudha Shrivastava, learned senior counsel with Ms.Jagriti
Thackar for the appellant.
Shri H.S.Rathore, learned GA for the respondent/State.
Per Justice Gajendra Singh:
I.A.No.16895/24 is the third repeat application under section 389 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 for suspension of execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant No.1 Mahendra Verma s/o Suresh Verma.
Appellant Mahendra Verma has been convicted under sections 302, 307, 307 of the IPC and section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, 10 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, 10 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- and 3 years RI and fine of Rs.500/- respectively with further default stipulation vide judgment dated 08.01.2022 in Sessions Case No.521/2010 by 16th A.S.J, Indore for committing murder of Dinesh and attempting to murder Inder Sonkar (PW/13) and Sonu (PW/14) using fire arm on 06.02.2010 at 07.30 p.m within the jurisdiction of PS Central Kothwali (Siyaganj), Indore regarding which a crime no.33/2010 was registered at PS Central Kothwali, Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/22/2025 6:35:06 PM 2 CRA-2370-2022 Indore.
This third repeat application is preferred on the ground that appellant/applicant is innocent. He has been implicated in this case due to mala fide intention and the prosecution story is concocted one. Inder (PW/13) and Sonu (PW/14) have expressed ignorance that persons who assaulted them were caught hold at the place of incident. They were declared hostile. Kishore (PW/1) has stated that he has not seen the person who fired gun shot. Raja Verma (PW/2) was also declared hostile. Kamal (PW/3) has also not seen the appellant/accused who assaulted by fire arm. Lavkush examined as PW/7 has made contradictory statements regarding the injury of Mahendra in his leg by fire arm. No witness has stated that who made deadly assault by gun shot on the deceased Dinesh. The motive of the incident has not been proved. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the eye witnesses. The appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty granted to him. The prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant has completed in custody a period of more than 8 years six months without remission and with remission more than nine years. The finger print from the gun was not collected to prove the case. Twelve cartridges were seized out of which two does not belong to the seized article i.e. Article A/1 and Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/22/2025 6:35:06 PM 3 CRA-2370-2022 A/2. The burqa was not seized from the appellant/applicant. It was seized from the place of incident. The appellant/applicant is not in good health. He is suffering from various age related diseases. Due to fight in jail the appellant/applicant sustained injury by getting leg fractured and he is not getting proper treatment in prison. The appellant is the sole earning member in the family. There is no one to look after the family. On account of his languishing in jail, the livelihood of the family of the appellant has been adversely affected.
Counsel for the appellant/applicant relied on Saudan Singh vs. State of U.P - 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259, order dated 11.03.2025 in criminal appeal No.900/2018, order dated 11.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.860/2016, order dated 11.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.02/2016, order dated 11.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.1595/2017, order dated 11.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.29/2016, order dated 12.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.1458/2014, order dated 13.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.4030/2019, order dated 12.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.2889/2018, order dated 11.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.1269/2017, order dated 11.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.2871/2018, order dated 13.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.351/2021, order dated 13.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.3155/2022, order dated 12.03.2025 in criminal appeal Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/22/2025 6:35:06 PM 4 CRA-2370-2022 no.1115/2016, order dated 13.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.1733/2018, order dated 18.03.2025 in criminal appeal no.02/2016 by the High Court of M.P, Bench at Indore.
Counsel for the State has opposed the application on the ground that the suspension of co-accused Narendra Verma has been denied vide order dated 19.03.2023. The Govt. Advocate filed the list of ten cases demonstrating that during trial when he was granted bail on 14.01.2016 and thereafter also he did not refrain himself from criminal activities and a total six crimes were registered against him within a short period and the trial is in progress before the trial court. His case carve out an exception as mentioned in Saudan Singh's case (supra). The suspension of his sentence will affect the trial of pending cases. Vide order dated 08.12.2023 it has been observed that his health issues have been taken care of in custody. No order of this court relied by the appellant/applicant was of similar facts with criminal antecedents and nature of commission of offence.
On the contrary, counsel for the appellant/applicant filed affidavit of wife of appellant that in crime no.188/2019 of Central Kothwali, Indore, the appellant has been acquitted and the other offences have been falsely registered. Except this case, appellant/applicant has not been convicted in any other case.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/22/2025 6:35:06 PM5 CRA-2370-2022 Perused the record.
Meticulous examination of the testimony is not expected at the stage of considering the application for suspension of sentence. The testimony of Police Constable Lavkush Dwivedi No.1879 posted at Central Kothwali, Indore examined as PW/7 discloses that he caught the present appellant/applicant at the place of incident with fire arm Article-C, an automatic pistol.
Considering the submissions of both the parties and criminal antecedents of appellant, we are not inclined to suspend the execution of sentence of the appellant at present. Accordingly, IA No.16895/2024 is rejected.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/22/2025
6:35:06 PM