Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajmer Singh vs State Of M.P. on 22 December, 2016
1 Cra.89/12 22/12/16
Shri Mrigendra Singh, Shri N.P.Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate alongwith Shri Vikas Mahawar for appellant No.2-Baldev Singh.
Shri A.K.Jain, Advocate for the appellant No.5. Shri Mohd. Irshad, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri V.K.Saxena, Sr. Advocate with Shri Jagdish Singh, Advocate for the victim.
I.A.No.7160/16, third repeat application for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant No.2-Baldev Singh is taken up and considered alongwith reply filed on 4/10/2016 by the State.
The present appeal assails the judgment dated 22/12/2011 passed by the Additional Sessions/Special Judge (SC & ST), Guna (M.P.) in S.T.Nos. 44/92 & 108/93 whereby each of the appellants stood convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/149 (six counts), 307/149 (five counts), 440/149, 148 and 147 of I.P.C. for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, 7 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, 2 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, 2 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and again 2 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, respectively, with default stipulations.
After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties in detail and perusing the record, we find that more or less similarly situated co- convicted appellant No.5-Jarnel Singh suffered dismissal of his application being I.A.No.10753/13 for suspension of sentence by order of Coordinate Bench of this court comprising of one of us (Justice Sheel Nagu) on 6/1/2014.
From perusal of the record, it appears that the name of the appellant No.2-Baldev Singh was though not mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/1) in specific terms except alleging offence also against a few other Sardars belonging to Shivpuri, however, the appellant No.2 was recognized by PW-1 Suresh in the TIP, Ex.P/2 as one of the assailants.
2 Cra.89/12The learned counsel for the appellant No.2 has strenuously argued by placing reliance on various discrepancies, embellishments and contradictions which according to him are writ large in the prosecution story which is found to be proved by the impugned judgment and for that purpose has placed reliance on various decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Yeshwant & others Vs. State of Maharashtra (1972)3 SCC 639 (para 19), Tahir Mohammad Kamad Girendra Singh & another Badri Singh & others Vs. State of M.P. [1993 Supp(2) SCC 697] (paras 8 &
10), Satrughana alias Satraughana Parida and others Vs. State of Orrisa [1995 Supp (4) SCC 448] paras 2 and 3), Shabad Pulla Reddy & others Vs. State of A.P. (1997) 8 SCC 495 (paras 7 & 8), Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 54(para 9), Ahmed Bin Salam Vs. State of A.P. (1999) 4 SCC 111 (para 5), Rajesh Govind Jagesha Vs. State of Maharashtra (1999) 8 SCC 428 (para 4), N.J.Suraj Vs. State of Represented by Inspector Of Police (2004) 11 SCC 346 (para 4), Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka (2009) 15 SCC 35 (para 15), Thimmareddy & others Vs. State of Karnataka (2014) 13 SCC 408 (paras 18 & 20) and State of Maharashtra Vs. Syed Umar Sayed Abbas & others (2016) 4 SCC 735 (paras 8 and 19).
True it is that there may be certain discrepancies which may or may not be of avail to the appellant No.2 but for the purpose of deciding the application for suspension of sentence, the said discrepancies, embellishments and contradictions are not good enough to accede to the prayer for suspension of sentence especially when the matter on merits of similarly situated co-convicted appellant No.5 Jarnel Singh has been considered and rejected by earlier order of this court on 6/1/2014. There are no major distinguishing features between the case of appellant No.2 (Baldev) 3 Cra.89/12 and the co-convicted appellant No.5-Jarnel Singh who suffered dismissal of his application for suspension of sentence on 6/1/2014.
Accordingly, this court does not find any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Coordinate Bench of this court on 6/1/2014.
This court cannot loose sight of the gravity of the offence which involves six murders.
In view of above, no case is made out for grant of bail by suspension of sentence.
I.A.No.7160/16 preferred by appellant No.2-Baldev Singh stands dismissed.
Learned counsel for appellant No.5-Jarnel Singh has filed I.A.No.7077/16, repeat application for suspension of sentence after the earlier one had been rejected on merits on 6/1/2014.
So far as merits of the matter are concerned qua the appellant No.5-Jarnel Singh, the same have been considered and rejected on 6/1/2014 and therefore the same cannot be raised again.
As regards the health condition of the appellant No.5-Jarnel Singh, State counsel is directed to file a report as to whether the appellant No.5-Jarnel Singh is keeping good health or not.
Let the case be taken up after vacation for consideration of I.A.No.7077/16.
(Sheel Nagu) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
22/12/2016 22/12/2016
(Bu)