Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 June, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-5408-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 5408 of 2021
(JITENDRA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 30-06-2025
Shri V. S. Bule, Advocate assisted by Shri Naresh Piplodiya, Advocate
for the appellant No.1 Jitendra.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Praveen kumar Vishwakarma, Advocate for the objector.
Heard on I.A No.8797/2025, which is fourth application under Section
430(1) of BNSS for grant of suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant
No.1 – Jitendra.
2. The appellant has been convicted u/S 302, 323 (3 counts) and 147 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, RI for 06
months (3 counts) and RI for 01 year respectively with usual default stipulations,
vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.08.2021 passed by
the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Khargone in S.T. No.12/2018.
3. Appellant’s first application for suspension of sentence was rejected on
merit vide order dated 04.04.2022. By the same order, application for suspension
of other convicts namely, Rohit, Kanak Singh, Dhyan Singh, Lal Singh and Uday
Singh were suspended. On 28.04.2022, co-convict Kanak Singh has also been
granted suspension of jail sentence. The repeat application filed on behalf of
present appellant was also dismissed as withdrawn by the same order. On
18.08.2022, again appellant’s application for suspension of sentence was
dismissed as withdrawn.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD
Signing time: 30-06-2025
06:06:47
2 CRA-5408-2021
4. As per the prosecution story, the complainant-Narayan Singh lodged an
FIR Exhibit-P/1 at police station Maingaon that today near about 9:30 a.m. he
along with Gajraj were going to the agricultural field and told Lal Singh to
remove the electric motor which was fitted on a well and on that issue Lal Singh,
Dhyan Singh and Uday Singh came back from the agricultural field with a
common intention to kill them. Lal Singh gave a blow with a stick on the left
hand and back. Jitendra and Uday Singh also started assaulting Gajraj with fists
and legs. Manohar came to save them, but Lal Singh and Jitendra started
assaulting him by stick in his hand, as a result he sustained injuries on his head
and back. Manohar sustained injuries on his ribs and legs and Gajraj sustained
injuries on his head and both the legs. Urmila Bai, Seema Bai and Radha Bai
came to save them and all the appellants have left the place by saying that today
they all are saved but in future if they would say anything about the removal of
the motor then they would kill them. Manohar and Gajraj were taken to the
hospital. FIR was lodged against Lal Singh, Uday Singh and Jitendra under
sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC. On the next day, Gajraj scummed to
injuries. Postmortem was carried out and according to which he died due to the
head injuries accordingly, section 302 of the IPC was also added to the FIR. The
statement of witnesses was recorded and after completing the investigation police
filed the charge sheet against all the six accused persons i.e. Jitendra Singh, Uday
Singh, Kanak Singh, Lal Singh Dyan Singh and Rohit. The charges were framed
under sections 147, 149, 294, 323, and 302/ 34 of the IPC. The trial was
committed to the Sessions Court. In the aforesaid incident, Jitendra and Uday
Singh also sustained the injuries. They lodged an FIR at crime no.316/2017 at
15:54 hrs. against Narayan, Manohar and Gajraj. The prosecution has examined
15 witnesses out of which P.W.-1, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6, and P.W.-15 are the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD
Signing time: 30-06-2025
06:06:47
3 CRA-5408-2021
eyewitnesses and supported the case of the prosecution.
5. Counsel for the appellant argued that if the entire facts and the evidence
are reconsidered, it is clear that first incident had taken place between the
appellant and the complainant party and the complainant party also sustained
fracture. An FIR was also registered against the complainant party and they have
also been convicted u/S 325 and 323 of IPC. It is not clear from the prosecution
case as to who had caused the fatal injury to the deceased Gajraj and therefore,
case of the present appellant could not have been distinguished from other co-
convicts.
6. Counsel for the State as well as objector opposes the prayer on the
ground that earlier application of the appellant was rejected on merit and even
after grant of suspension of sentence to co-convicts, application of present was
dismissed as withdrawn.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the testimony of eye-witnesses PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-
15, it is not clear who had caused fatal injury to the deceased Gajraj. It is alleged
that present appellant was carrying a stick but assaulted the deceased with fists
and legs. The present appellant has already undergone actual jail sentence of
seven years and seven months. Appeal is of the year 2021. Final hearing of the
appeal is likely to take sufficient long time.
8. Considering the aforesaid, the present application is allowed. The jail
sentence of appellant No.1 – Jitendra is suspended upon his depositing the fine
amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
15.09.2025 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD
Signing time: 30-06-2025
06:06:47
4 CRA-5408-2021
Registry.
9. With the aforesaid, I.A No.8797/2025 allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
gp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD
Signing time: 30-06-2025
06:06:47