Madhya Pradesh High Court
Fulsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2017
Cr.A. No.892/2016
13.02.2017
Per: Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Kshtij Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.
Heard on I.A.No6147/2016- an application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of custodial sentence of appellants Fulsingh and Amarsingh.
The appellants have preferred this application against the judgment dated 27.05.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District-Rajgarh (Biora) in Special Trial No.314/2014, whereby the appellant No.1 has been convicted for offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC and appellant No.2 has been convicted for offence u/S.304 Part I r/w S.34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine and three months R.I. respectively.
As per prosecution story, on 14.05.2014 at about 9:30 pm complainant Ramprasad (PW.4) along with Nannulal was returning from village Kuwar Kothi, where, on the way near the dam his nephew Amarsingh and his brother-in-law Phoolsingh standing armed with knives and stopped them. Due to an old enmity Phoolsingh inflicted knife on Ramprasad as a result of which he sustained injuries in his stomach and accused Amarsingh also inflicted knife blow on the right side of his chest, when Nannulal intercepted in the matter, Phoolsingh inflicted knife blow on Nannulal's stomach and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, Nannulal went to his village and informed Shivnarayan (PW.1) and his family members regarding the incident. Thereafter, Ramprasad lodged the report at Police Station-Pachour. On that report crime No.233/2014 was registered for offence u/Ss.314, 324, 307, 302 r/w S.34 of IPC. Charge-sheet was filed. During treatment Nannulal died on 07.07.2014.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned trial Court convicted the appellant No.2 with the aid of Section 34 of IPC with S.304 Part I of IPC while in the prosecution case, it is mentioned that appellant No.2 did not cause any injury to the deceased. The Trial Court wrongly placing reliance on the testimony of alleged eyewitnesses found appellants gulity. He further submitted that the trial Court without considering the fact that the FIR is an anti timed and antedated document and relied upon its. There is no recovery or discovery of any article or fact from or at the instance of the appellant and there is no human blood found on the seized weapon. The offence u/S.304 Part I 34 of IPC cannot be made against the appellants, the trial Court has wrongly found the appellants guilty. The appellants were on bail during trial and have not misused the liberty granted to them and counsel prayed for grant of suspension of jail sentence stating that final hearing of the appeal will take time.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/State opposed the application averting that appellant Phoolsingh inflicted knife blow on the complainant Ramprasad and Nannulal with intension to kill them. According to medical report injuries sustained by Ramprasad and Nannulal were dangerous to life. He also submitted that accused Amarsingh was also present on the spot and he was having common intension to kill the complainant and Nannulal. Hence, counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
It appears from the statement of complainant Ramprasad that at the time of incident Phoolsingh inflicted knife blow with intension to kill him and Nannulal and accused Amarsingh was also present there. His statement is fully corroborated as the statement of Jagdish Nagar (PW.7), who conducted the medical examination of Rampasad and deceased Nannulal, soon after the incident. Although the incident occurred on 15.05.2014 while Nannulal died on 07.07.2014. But Dr. Jagdish (PW.7) who conducted the postmortem of deceased Nannulal clearly stated that Nannulal died due to septicemia which was caused due to injuries sustained by him.
Looking to the above submissions, we do not find any good ground to allow the application, therefore, the application (I.A. No.6147/2016) stands dismissed.
(SC Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
JYOTI