Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2026
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@SLP(CRL.) NO.6378 OF 2026)
JITENDRA ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. A complaint came to be lodged on 26.10.2020 alleging that
complainant’s brother Akhilesh had a quarrel with Ranjeet
Singh, Shivraj Singh, Karan Singh, Jitendra and Shivpal.
Akhilesh had informed the same to Sushila (complainant).
Sushila and her husband Shyam Singh is said to have decided to
resolve the issue. It is further alleged by the complainant
that while she was coming from Gurasiya to Agar on a
motorcycle along with her husband Shyam Singh and daughter
Simran, they were intercepted and Shivraj started abusing them
and complainant claims that she saw Shivraj and Jitendra with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2026.04.17
16:45:13 IST
1
Reason:
SLP(CRL.) NO.6378 OF 2026
knives in their hands while others were having sticks and theyall announced that Shyam Singh should be finished and together
they assaulted Shyam Singh on the head with lathis and due to
the injury sustained he fell down and also the complainant
claims to have been assaulted on the head with a stick and on
being brought to the hospital, Shyam Singh is said to have
expired due to the injuries sustained.
4. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet came to be
filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307,
147, 149, 148 IPC and appellant was convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-. On account of split up
chargesheet, Akhilesh, Sushila and Shanta were tried
separately and convicted for offences punishable under
Sections 324 and 506 which arose from the same set of facts.
The appellant was tried in ST No.15/2021 and preferred an
appeal in CRA No. 2577 of 2025 and sought for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail, which came to be rejected. Hence,
this appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, we
notice from the records that appellant had already undergone
imprisonment of 5 years 6 months. In fact, there was a cross
2 SLP(CRL.) NO.6378 OF 2026
case also in which the complainant in the instant case has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323
IPC.
6. Taking these facts into consideration and the fact that the
appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future or it
would be time consuming, we are of the considered view that
prayer of the appellant deserves to be granted. Yet another
factor which would sway in our mind or persuade us to accept
the contention of the appellant, at this stage, is the fact
that the complainant, who claims to be the eye-witness, had
deposed that she was not present at the spot of crime (vide
paragraph 30 of the trial court judgment). These facts
cumulatively persuade us to grant the relief and we make it
explicitly clear that abovesaid opinion is expressed for the
limited purpose of suspension of sentence and the appellate
court shall not be prejudiced, in any manner whatsoever by the
same, and it would be at liberty to independently assess the
evidence available before it while adjudicating the appeal on
its merits.
7. With these observations, appeal is allowed. Impugned order
is set aside. Sentence imposed on the appellant in ST No.
15/2021 on 25.02.2025 stands suspended and ordered to be
3 SLP(CRL.) NO.6378 OF 2026
released on bail subject to such conditions as the trial court
may deem fit to impose including the condition of directing
the appellant to deposit the fine amount as has been ordered
by the trial court.
8. Pending application if any stands consigned to records.
………………J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
New Delhi;
April 16, 2026.
4 SLP(CRL.) NO.6378 OF 2026
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6378/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-01-
2026 in IA No. 15261/2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Indore]
JITENDRA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 108993/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 16-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. N.K. Mody, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Ishita M Puranik, Adv.
Ms. Jigisha Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Aniya, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv.
Mr. P N Razdan, AOR
5 SLP(CRL.) NO.6378 OF 2026
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed Order
placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(RASHI GUPTA) (AVGV RAMU)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
6 SLP(CRL.) NO.6378 OF 2026