Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gabbu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2020
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.38184/2020
Gabbu Singh Vs. State of MP
INDORE; DATED - 14/10/2020
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the objector.
Shri Amit Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Crime No. Under Section Police Station Date of Arrest 153/2020 302, 323/34 IPC Mahidpur 14/07/20 As declared by the petitioner, this is the first application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the brother-in-law of the petitioner, Bhagwan Singh is the main accused in the case. Prior to the present incident, the deceased had assaulted Bhagwan Singh and had caused him life-threatening injuries. Bhagwan Singh lodged the FIR. The deceased was convicted in that case vide judgment dated 05/10/2017 delivered in ST No.72/2017 by Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, Ujjain. Due to this enmity, Bhagwan Singh and his extended family members have been falsely roped in this case.
3. On merits, it is submitted that there is a discrepancy in the time of the incident. In the Dehati Nalishi and FIR, the time of the incident is mentioned at 07:30 pm, while in the other Dehati Nalishi, it is mentioned as 10:30 pm and in the merg intimation, the column of time has been left blank. This, according to the learned counsel, shows that to avoid the suspicion on the ground of delay in filing the FIR, the time of the incident has been manipulated and this makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
4. Learned counsel further pointed out that the main accused Bhagwan Singh was having a firearm but he never used it instead he HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.38184/2020 Gabbu Singh Vs. State of MP used the butt of it to beat the deceased. This, according to the learned counsel, draws two inferences, first; that the story narrated by the complainant is unbelievable and second; that the intention of the main accused Bhagwan Singh was not to kill the deceased. This also makes the story of the prosecution doubtful.
5. Lastly, it is averred that no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner. The witnesses have only stated that the petitioner wielded a metal pipe and caused injury to the deceased. No specific injury is attributed to the petitioner and more importantly, no specific injury, which caused the death of the deceased, is attributed to the petitioner, therefore, it is urged that the petitioner be granted bail.
6. Learned panel lawyer, as well as learned counsel for the objector, have opposed the prayer.
7. They both have submitted that just after the incident, the police vehicle reached on the spot, picked up injured Kripal and took him to the hospital, where Doctor declared him brought dead. In the hospital itself, Gokul Singh narrated the incident before the police. In case of unnatural death, as per their common practice, the police prepare two documents at the same time and place, one of them is commonly called as Dehati Nalishi and the other is called Dehati Merg Intimation. The FIR is registered on the basis of Dehati Nalishi while Merg Intimation is registered on the basis of the Dehati Merg Intimation. Dehati Merg Intimation is only a document of intimation of unnatural death. It has nothing to do with the cause of death, therefore, often, it does not contain details of the incident. Dehati Nalishi is an intimation of the crime received on the spot. In fact, it is an FIR deduced on the spot, therefore, it contains the details of the incident. The police have followed the same procedure in the present case. Both the Dehati Nalishi and Dehati Merg Intimation have been HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.38184/2020 Gabbu Singh Vs. State of MP recorded at the same time and place, therefore, the alleged discrepancy in the time is only a bonafide clerical mistake and does not make the entire case of the prosecution doubtful. Further, in his cross- examination during the trial, the scriber can be questioned to explain it. It would not be fair to discard or disbelieve the prosecution case, without giving the opportunity to explain the same.
8. It is asserted that the injured eye-witness as well as two independent witnesses namely Shankar and Ishwar have supported the case of the prosecution. A blood-stained metal pipe is recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The doctor opined that the death was due to the injuries sustained by the deceased and that the death was homicidal in nature. The rivalry between the petitioner and his family with the deceased is an admitted fact. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner be not granted bail.
9. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and have perused the case diary.
10. On due consideration of the act attributed to the petitioner, the evidence available on the record, and other facts and circumstances of the case in its totality, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner, therefore, the petition stands dismissed.
(Virender Singh) Judge sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2020.10.19 13:48:46 +05'30'