IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE (SHAMU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 20-01-2026 Ms.Sharmila Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Bhaskar Agrawal - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A No.16161/2025, which is second application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C for grant of suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant Shamu.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that though it is mentioned as second application for suspension of sentence but the earlier aplication was withdrawn because the description of the offences was wrongly mentioned.

Considering the same, we treat the present application as first application for suspension of jail sentence.

The appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/149, 323/149, 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and R.I for 3 months, 1 year with fine of 500/- with default stipulation.

As per the prosecution case, a report was lodged by the complainant Varsingh alleging that in the presence of Bhura and other witnesses they have seen that the accused persons were causing injury to the deceased and the present appellant Shamu had caught hold and when he went to save the deceased, he was hit with the help of lathi by Raju and Shamu which caused injury in his hand. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the police station and when he was being taken for the treatment he died.

Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the ground that there were some disputes between the parties and, therefore, the present appellant was falsely implicated. She further argued that the statement of the eye-witnesses is not corroborated with the medical evidence. As per the testimony of doctor/PW-7, the deceased had died before 22 hours and if the same is accepted the deceased was already dead and, therefore, the offences under Section 307 IPC could not have been registered. She further argued that in the Post Mortem report on the dead body of the deceased "rigor mortis" (temporary stiffening of muscles after death, caused by the depletion of ATP (energy) and buildup of lactic acid, leading to permanent actomyosin cross- links that prevent muscle relaxation) marks were present from which it was clear that the death of the deceased occurred much prior to the lodging of the FIR.

Counsel for the State opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case on the basis of testimony of the eye-witnesses PW-2/Varsingh, PW - 10/Bhura and PW- 11/Tejudibai (wife of the deceased). He further drawn attention of the court to the statement of PW-2/Varsingh where it was made clear that the deceased had died while taking him to the hospital which explained that why the report was first lodged under Section 307 IPC and thereafter the same was enhanced to Section 302 of IPC.

So far the testimony of the doctor and the Post Mortem report are concerned, the death of the deceased was within 24 hours. Apart from that we find from the record that after the incident, the appellant had absconded and he was declared absconder and a challan was filed in his absconsion.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any case for grant of suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, I.A No.16161/2025 is dismissed.

List the matter in due course.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)

JUDGE JUDGE PK