Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ramroopsingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Ramroopsingh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 16, 1986
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/504392

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ] Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parti...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramroopsingh

Respondent

State of Madhya Pradesh

Legal References

Reported In
1987CriLJ1256

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him - five thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the c. sessions judge, shivpuri for his omissions on such points as non-issue/late issue of summonses to witnesses, his failure to recall, the presence or absence of witnesses on 10-1-86 and also of the fact whether summonses were back or not......was occasioned by state of affairs smacking of the abuse of process of the court. where such a state of affairs comes up, the party who has been prejudiced, is entitled to suitable relief.11. i am therefore of the view that applicant ramroopsingh is entitled to be released on bail. on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of rs. 5,000/- (rs. five thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the c.j.m. shivpuri for his appearance on the dates of hearing in s.t. no. 92/85 pending in the court of addl. sessions judge, shivpuri, he shall be released on bail.12. a copy of this order sheet be sent to the sessions judge, shivpuri to make an inquiry on the following points and to submit his report on the factual aspect involved : -i) on what dates summonses were issued in s.t. no. 92/85 for the hearings on 10th january '86 to 14th jan. '86 ?ii) how many summonses, if issued, have been sent by the police after service ?iii) whether any witnesses attended the court on 10-1-86 ?iv) whether any witnesses attended the court from 11-1-86 to 13-1-86 ?v) the sessions judge will indicate what action he proposes to take against the defaulting clerks and officials, in respect of default found by him.vi) the learned sessions judge will also ask the addl. sessions judge, shivpuri for his omissions on such points as non-issue/late issue of summonses to witnesses, his failure to recall, the presence or absence of witnesses on 10-1-86 and also of the fact whether summonses were back or not.13. the sessions judge, shivpuri be directed to complete the inquiry and send his report by 15th february, 1986, the report be then placed before me in chambers.14. certified copy of this order sheet be furnished to the counsel for the applicant on usual charges during the course of the day.

Full Judgment

K.K. Verma, J.

1. Applicant Ranroopsingh by Shri B.R. Sharma, Advance.

2. State by Shri P.D. Agarwal, panel Lawyer.

3. Letter No. 69/dated 13-1-86 of the District and Sessions judge, Shivpuri shows that the copy of this Court's order dated 3-1-86 was received by him on 11-1-86. It should have been sent in his name; the office to explain the omission. The Sessions Judge says that the report in question had been sent to the Registry with a special messenger named Devkinandan, Process Server. A copy of that report dated 24-12-85 has been enclosed with the Session Judge's memo. The Addl. Registrar will make an enquiry an fix the blame on the original report No. 983/dated 24-12-85 sent by the Addl. Session Judge, Shivpuri before this Court. The Addl. Registrar will put up the explanations of the clerks concerned before me in the Chambers, within 10 days from today.

4. learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard on the bail application.

5. Applicant's learned Counsel has filed the order-sheet dated 10-1-86.

6. The applicant was taken into custody on 17-5-85. In Crime No. 47/85 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. of the P.S. Jigna (District Shivpuri), in respect of an incident that had occurred in the night intervening 16th and 17th May'85 at village Satari. One Chhoteraja alias Gopalsingh and one Sukhlal Kachhi died of gun short injuries. About this applicant Ramrupsingh lodged a report at the P.S. Jigna. Nearly 20 persons were accused and arrested in that case, and case is pending in the Court of Session. It appears that Baijnath is to the effect that ramroopsingh came to his house and shot him. It appears that there are no independent witness in support of this version. All this has been stated only with a view to get a proper perspective for the bail application.

7. The case in which Ramroopsingh was an accused came before the Court of Session Shivpuri in the month of August'85. Charge was framed on 17-10-85. The case was then fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 10-1-86, 11-1-86, 13-1-86 and 14-1-86

8. A certified copy of the order sheet dated 10-1-86 filed by the applicant's learned Counsel shows that the Addl. Sessions Judge adjourned the case to 3-3-86, 4-3-86, 5-3-86 and 6-3-86 on the ground that the Public Prosecutor's submission appealed to him that he (the Public Prosecutor) had illegible copies of the challan papers,

9. The order sheet does not show whether the summonses have been issued for the witnesses and whether they have been served or not and whether any witness was in attendance in Court on 10-1-86, or not.

10. It is, therefore, clear that the prosecution, has deliberately obtained adjournment on a very flimsy ground. I wonder how the learned Addl. Sessions Judge thought it fit to grant such a request, when the original challan papers were on record. Thus, the applicant has been made to suffer this delay, which was occasioned by state of affairs smacking of the abuse of process of the Court. Where such a state of affairs comes up, the party who has been prejudiced, is entitled to suitable relief.

11. I am therefore of the view that applicant Ramroopsingh is entitled to be released on bail. On his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. Shivpuri for his appearance on the dates of hearing in S.T. No. 92/85 pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, he shall be released on bail.

12. A copy of this order sheet be sent to the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri to make an inquiry on the following points and to submit his report on the factual aspect involved : -

i) On what dates summonses were issued in S.T. No. 92/85 for the hearings on 10th January '86 to 14th Jan. '86 ?

ii) How many summonses, if issued, have been sent by the Police after service ?

iii) Whether any witnesses attended the Court on 10-1-86 ?

iv) Whether any witnesses attended the Court from 11-1-86 to 13-1-86 ?

v) The Sessions Judge will indicate what action he proposes to take against the defaulting clerks and officials, in respect of default found by him.

vi) The learned Sessions Judge will also ask the Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivpuri for his omissions on such points as non-issue/late issue of summonses to witnesses, his failure to recall, the presence or absence of witnesses on 10-1-86 and also of the fact whether summonses were back or not.

13. The Sessions Judge, Shivpuri be directed to complete the inquiry and send his report by 15th February, 1986, the report be then placed before me in chambers.

14. Certified copy of this order sheet be furnished to the counsel for the applicant on usual charges during the course of the day.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial