Parsuram And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on IA No.4684 of 2024, which is the second repeat application under Section 389 of CrPC filed on behalf of appellant No.2-Bhagirath alias Daau seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Present appellant alongwith other accused persons stood convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10000/-, under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section 323/149 of IPC and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.4.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, District Datia in Sessions Trial No. 121/2012.

Present appellant has already undergone jail sentence of about six and 10 months.

As per prosecution story, complainant Pushpendra Rajpoot along with Dharmendra Sharma at about 5:45 pm on 3.7.2012 went on a motorcycle belonging to Dharmendra Sharma to the house of Parasram Lodhi to recover the loan amount and in the house of Parasram Lodhi, Lokendra Lodhi and his family members were present. Complainant Pushpendra Rajpoot demanded loan amount from Lokendra. He reacted and hurled filthy abuses disputing the outstanding loan. Both of them engaged in heated exchange and also assaulted each other. At this time, the family members of Lokendra Lodhi namely; Kalyan, Bhagirath (present appellant), Bhoora, Parshuram and their associates Jeetu Parihar and Rajaram armed with lathi came there and started beating the complainant Pushpendra. Pushpendra suffered injuries on elbow of right hand, elbow of left hand and knee of left leg. It is further alleged that Lokendra, Bhoora, Bhagirath (present appellant) and Parshuram also started beating Dharmendra Sharma with lathi, hand and fist. Dharmendra Sharma suffered injuries on the occipital region of his head, face and neck, etc. resulting into his death. Upon completion of investigation, chalan was filed. Case was committed to the Sessions Trial. The trial Court upon critical evaluation of evidence brought on record has convicted the appellant as aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the appellants while taking exception to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. The present appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Only omnibus allegations have been levelled against the appellant and other co-accused persons. Appellant has already suffered incarceration for more than six years and 10 months. Moreso, similarly placed co-accused/appellant No.3-Lokendra has already been extended benefit of suspension of sentence by this Court vide order dated 28/02/2024 under similar facts and circumstances. He seeks parity in treatment. That apart, appeal is of the year 2018 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that present appellant may be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Per contra, Shri A.K. Nirankari, Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the application and prays for its rejection supporting the impugned judgment with submission that looking to the gravity and nature of offence, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment in the matter of grant of benefit of suspension of sentence to present appellant.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from commenting on rival contentions touching merits of the case, but regard being had to the fact that similarly placed co-accused/appellant No.3-Lokendra has already been extended benefit of suspension of sentence by this Court vide order dated 28/02/2024 under similar facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that he has already suffered jail incarceration of 6 years and 10 months and that appeal being of 2018 is not likely to be decided in near future, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, we are of the view that present appellant deserves to be and is accordingly extended the benefit of suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant No.2 - Bhagirath alias Dau shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Appellant No.2 - Bhagirath alias Dau is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 8/7/2024 and thereafter, on other subsequent dates as may be fixed by Office in this behalf.

Accordingly, IA No. 4684 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of. Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.