Bhagwan Singh and Hemraj vs State Of MP

Virender Singh J

On due consideration, IA No.4591/2020, which is an application for urgent hearing of the matter is allowed.

Heard on IA No.7631/2019.

This is an application for suspension of sentence. Initially this application was filed on behalf of both the appellants Bhagwan Sigh and Hemraj, but on 29.07.2020, the learned counsel withdrew this application qua applicant no. 2 Hemraj, who is still absconding, therefore, this order only relates to the applicant no.1 Bhagwan Singh.

First application of Bhagwan Singh was dismissed due to discrepancy in the name of the appellant and in the name of the applicants. The second application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 09.04.2019.

This is a double murder case. Both the applicants were named in the Dehati Nalishi lodged by one of the deceased Jamunalal. In his police statement also, Jamunalal named both of them. Witnesses Rajaram PW/1 and Santoshbai PW/2 have categorically revealed their names as the active participants in the incident.

Besides, this is not the first offence of the applicant Bhagwan Singh. One other crime bearing crime no.42/2016 was also registered against him.

This time, the applicant has come before this Court on the ground that his plea of juvenility was not considered by this Court earlier. But this application is misconceived and lacks bonafide as the fact that this issue was set at rest long back even before start of the trial by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), has been concealed.

The record of the trial Court reflects that both the appellants, who were 17 years old at the time of the incident, were first produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, who considered the issue of their trial as juvenile/children in conflict. The learned JJB obtained reports from the medical board. The medical board examined thoroughly both the appellants and also obtained a report from Professor and HOD of Psychiatric Department, Gandhi Medical College and Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, Dr. R.M. Sahu and opined that both the appellants were quite mature and were completely able to understand the circumstances.

Keeping in view this report, the learned JJB again examined the issue and hold that at the time of the incident, both the appellants were 17 years age. They were quite mature. They understood their act and its result and participated in the incident consciously and actively. The learned JJB opined that it is necessary that they be tried by the Child Court. The learned JJB directed the police to file the charge sheet before the Child Court. The order was complied with. The Child Court tried them, held them guilty and awarded life imprisonment along with other term imprisonments.

There is nothing on record to show that this order of learned JJB dated 23.08.2016 has ever been challenged by the appellants. Even no such objection, as is being taken through the present application, was ever raised before the Child Court.

All these facts have been concealed for reasons unknown to the Court but emanated from the record of the Court. When the two Courts below have considered the appellants quite mature and deserving to be tried as a mature man and the opinion is based on the appropriate medical report, then after 4 years of the trial and after conviction, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the learned JJB, therefore, we do not find it appropriate to allow this third application for suspension of sentence on the ground taken by the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa Mittal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 2 SCC 787 but the same is completely distinguishable on the facts and is not advantageous to the applicant.

Resultantly, IA No.7631/2019 stands dismissed.

This is an admitted appeal.

List for final hearing in due course.