Madhya Pradesh High Court
Juvenile X vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 April, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE CRA No. 818 of 2024 (JUVENILE X Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Dated : 10-04-2024 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Tarun Pagare, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Heard on IA No.3770/2024 which is an application for suspension of jail sentence and to grant bail to the appellant, who is a child in conflict with law.
2. The present appeal is filed under Section 101 of Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order of conviction under Section 302 of IPC for 7 years RI with fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months RI; under Section 201 of IPC for 3 years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of 2 months RI passed by 4th ASJ, Juvenile Court, Dist. Shajapur by judgment dated 21.12.2023 in SPST No.41/2021 arising out of Crime No.171/2021.
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail on the application for custody applied by mother.
4. The prosecution case is that the appellant along with the other accused persons with common intention caused murder of one Narayan. One Assistant Sub-Inspector Narendra Kushwah (PW-8) on police mobile vehicle registration No.MP03-A-3308 along with driver Nirbhay Singh was on Gast on railway station road near culvert, he had seen that one Swift Car without number, plate was coming. The vehicle was stopped and during checking on the driver seat of foot rest, blood was found. The other constables Shailendra Sharma (PW-2) and Pradeep Sikarwar (PW-1) were also called at the spot. In the said car, four persons were sitting. The driver disclosed his name Naveen Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 10-04-2024 18:13:51 2 and the other person sitting in the car disclosed their name Ravi, Rakesh and the appellant child in conflict with law. The independent witnesses Dharmendra and Pravesh Rangshahi (PW-9) also came at the spot and on checking the diki, one dead body was found. The accused persons stated that there was a dispute with the deceased regarding liquor business and with common intention, they had brought him in the car and thereafter they had taken drink. It is further stated that Naveen, Rakesh and the present appellant caught hold the hands of the deceased and one co-accused Ravi fired on the head of Narayan. He died on the spot. Thereafter they were taking the dead body in the diki of car to destroy the evidence. The pistol magazine and empty cartridge were seized from co-accused Ravi. PW-10 Udaysingh took the sample of blood from car and sent it to FSL. After assimilation of entire facts and evidence, the trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Since the appellant was tried as a juvenile, he applied for bail for custody through mother.
5. This Court called a probation officer's report. As per the Probation Officer report, the father of the appellant is doing work of Chowkidari and is in habit of consuming liquor. Mother Radhe is a housewife and there is one sister Shivani. Probation Officer reported that the appellant is unemployed and his financial condition is stringent. In the family, there are old parents and one unmarried sister. It is true that no adverse report is given by the Probation Officer, but he has clearly stated that father of the appellant is a Chowkidar and is in habit of consuming liquor and mother is a housewife, there is no any other male member in the family to have control over the appellant. In the case of Narayan Sharma vs. State of MP, ILR 2012 MP 796, Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, 2005 SCC (Cri) 742, Sanjay Chaurasia vs. State of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 10-04-2024 18:13:51 3 U.P., (2006) 55 ACC 480 and in Criminal Appeal No.755/2023, this Court held that the bail application of a child in conflict with law cannot be rejected merely on the ground of seriousness of the crime. The only exception to grant of bail to a child in conflict with the law is the reasonable ground for believing that release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Considering the manner of offence that the appellant caught hold the deceased and one of the co-accused fired on the head of the deceased, he played active role along with the other co-accused persons. As per the report of the Probation Officer, the father is a Chowkidar is in habit of consuming liquor and would not be in a position to have control and supervision over the appellant child in conflict with law. The custody has been applied by mother, who is a housewife lady. She would not be in position to have effective control and supervision. Thus, apart from the manner of the commission of offence, the report of Probation Officer also clearly says that there is no family member in the appellant's family to have control and supervision over him. There is all possibility that the release on bail him would bring him into association with other known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice considering the impact on the family of the deceased.
6. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for grant of suspension of jail sentence. The application (IA No.3770/2024) is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 10-04-2024 18:13:51 4 soumya Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 10-04-2024 18:13:51