Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Alias Vijay Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1 CRA-4439-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 4439 of 2020
(MANISH ALIAS VIJAY SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 06-01-2022
Shri. Dilip Parihar, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Rahul Deshmukh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Shri Mahendra Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the objector. I.A. No.13769/2021 has been filed for grant of temporary bail. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the said I.A. Accordingly, the I.A. No.13769/2021 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Heard on I.A. No.2003/2021, an application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the appellant Manish @ Vijay Sahu.
T he appellant has filed this present appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17-03-2020 awarded by the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (MP) in S.T. No.9111/19, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation clause as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution story, the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of fist and because of one single blow of fist, the deceased died.
By taking this Court to the statement of Dr. Maravi (PW-2), learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the cross-examination he clearly stated that he cannot depose with certainty whether the injuries caused were arising out of fist blow. Apart from this, the appellant was required to receive certain amount from the deceased and since it was not paid, there was a sudden quarrel during which the deceased fell down and died. By placing reliance on AIR 1956 SC 116 [Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of Madhya Pradesh], Criminal Appeal No.229/1997 (Bagdi Ram vs. State Signature Not Verified SAN of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 03/12/2003 and another judgment of the Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra Date: 2022.01.07 14:34:31 IST 2 CRA-4439-2020 Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.58/2007 (Rupinder Singh Sandhu vs. State of Punjab & Others), learned counsel for the appellant submits that necessary ingredients for invoking Section 302 of IPC are absent. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is in custody since 04.02.2019 and as the hearing of the appeal will take time therefore, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by counsel for the respondent/State by placing reliance on paragraphs-10 & 14 of the judgment.
Learned counsel for the objector borrowed the same arguments and submits that the appellant, in fact, threatened the family members of the deceased before the incident about dire consequences.
The Apex Court in the case of Bagdi Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.229/1997 has opined as under :-
"So far as the appellant is concerned the evidence is clear and categoric that it was he who assaulted the deceased on his head with 'gainti' (pick-axe). The High Court, however, held, and in our view, rightly, that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant did not intend to cause the death of the deceased. There was an altercation followed by assault on PWs.1 and 4 and brick-batting from both sides. When tempers ran high, in the heat of passion, upon sudden quarrel, the appellant assaulted the deceased though unarmed, but without pre- meditation. He caused only one injury to the deceased by picking up the 'gainti' (pick-axe) lying there, and the fact that he did not repeat the blow is indicative of the fact that he did not intend to cause the death of the deceased. The High Court gave to the appellant the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 and found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. We find no error with the finding recorded by the High Court. But in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the sentence of eight years is on the higher side. The ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, we allow the appeal partly modifying the sentence awarded to the appellant to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC but maintain the sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous Signature Not Verified SAN imprisonment for six months. This Court by its order Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra Date: 2022.01.07 14:34:31 IST 3 CRA-4439-2020 th dated 25 April, 1997 had granted bail to the appellant. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve out the remainder of his sentence. He shall be entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
As noticed in Bagdi Ram (supra), a single blow during a sudden quarrel was made by appellant therein by means of a pick-axe. The offence was converted into Section 304 Part I of IPC and appellant therein was directed to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.
In the instant case, we prima-facie find substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has undergone more than 50% of the sentence. If it is treated to be an offence under Section 304 Part I IPC at par with the principles laid down in the case of Bagdi Ram (supra).
Considering the nature of incidence and period of sentence undergone by the appellant coupled with the fact that the final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2003/2021 is allowed. The execution of jail sentence of the appellant Manish @ Vijay Sahu is hereby suspended and it is ordered that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court, Jabalpur on 22/6/2022 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Priya.P
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra
Date: 2022.01.07 14:34:31 IST