Nawal Singh And Others vs State Of MP

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

I.A. No.10822/2020, an application for urgent hearing through video conferencing, accordingly, stands allowed.

Heard on I.A.No.10825/2020, second application, under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., moved on behalf of the appellant No1 Nawal Singh. First application (I.A.No.9934/2019) filed by the appellant No.1 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt.05.02.2020.

This Criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda District Vidisha (M.P.) in S.T. No.41/2014, whereby appellant No.1 Nawal Singh has been convicted under section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer additional imprisonment for six months.

The prosecution story found to be proved is that the present appellant alongwith other co-accused persons, poured the kerosene on the deceased Gajraj and co-accused Sarvan set the deceased ablaze.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 Nawal Singh restricted his argument to the ground of age of the appellant No.1 without entering into the merits of the case. He submitted that the appellant No.1 Nawal Singh is aged about 69 years and is a senior citizen and he has already put in incarceration of more than two years. Therefore, looking to the COVID-19 situation, wherein the directions have been issued by the Apex Court for de-congesting the jails, benefit of suspension of custodial sentence may be extended to the present appellant.

On the other hand, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer contending that the conviction is based on the dying declaration of the deceased Gajraj which reflects the name of the present appellant as well. It is further submitted that the offence was committed by the present appellant and other co-accused persons in a pre-planned manner with a common intention. While committing the offence, the present appellant himself was a senior citizen aged about 62 years, therefore, no benefit of age can be granted to the present appellant at this stage and on such grounds prayed for rejection of the application.

Taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, I.A.No.10825/2020 stands dismissed.