Prutiviraj S/O Devchand Chauhan vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Kanhan ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8976 Bom

1/5                                                              11 apeal 64.22.odt..odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2022
                                      IN
                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.64 OF 2022
                              Prutiviraj S/o DevchandChauhan
                                             VS.
      The State of Maharashtra, through its PSO Kanhan Police Station, Kanhan, Nagpur
Office     Notes,    Office                     Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram,
Appearances, court's orders
or      directions     and
Registrar's orders
Shri Sankalp Meshram, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri M.J. Khan, APP for respondent/State.


                                      CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J.

DATE : 08.09.2022

1. The appellant has made this application for suspension of substantive sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 10.01.2022.

2. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part II and 506 of Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for two months under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for 15 days under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

 2/5                                        11 apeal 64.22.odt..odt



      3.         The    incident    in   question       occurred     on
      11/04/2017.      At   about   7.00     a.m.,      the   deceased

Narmadabai was sweeping her courtyard. The appellant after sweeping the front side of the temple threw the garbage in the drainage line of the Gram Panchayat abutting the house of the informant-Rekha Pure, who happens to be daughter-in-law of the deceased. The deceased questioned the appellant as to why he is throwing garbage in the said drainage. On this count the appellant picked up a quarrel with her and threatened to kill her. At about 1.00 pm while the deceased was standing in front of her house, the appellant came there with a spade. He questioned the deceased as to why she had prohibited him from throwing garbage in the drainage of Gram Panchayat in the morning. The appellant mercilessly beat the deceased. He inflicted the blows with spade on her head. The deceased succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment in the hospital on 20/04/2017.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that there are inconsistencies in the medical evidence and ocular evidence. Learned Advocate further submitted that the evidence of the eye witnesses is not consistent to establish their presence on the spot together. Learned Advocate further submitted that the evidence if considered in entirety would not be sufficient to prove the charge against the appellant. Learned Advocate submitted that considering the quantum of sentence, the same may 3/5 11 apeal 64.22.odt..odt

be suspended. Learned Advocate submitted that appellant during the pendency of the trial was on bail and there is no grievance of misuse of liberty by the appellant.

5. Learned APP for the respondent/State submitted that the intention of the appellant could be gathered on the basis of the multiple injuries inflicted on the vital parts of the body of deceased. Learned APP submitted that there were three serious internal injuries. Learned APP submitted that in the given set of facts and the volume of evidence placed on record, this is not a fit case to suspend the sentence.

6. It is to be noted that while deciding the application for suspension of sentence, the quantum of sentence is one of the important factors. The appellant was charge for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that said evidence was not sufficient to prove the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code inasmuch as the required intention had not been spelt out from the material on record. However, learned Sessions Judge found that the offence committed by the appellant would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

7. I have perused the evidence. It is true that deceased had sustained multiple external injuries and multiple internal injuries. The deceased succumbed to the 4/5 11 apeal 64.22.odt..odt

injuries on 20.04.2017. This fact would indicate that deceased responded to the treatment in the hospital from 11.04.2017 to 20.04.2017.

8. Perusal of the judgment and order would show that learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased and based on the same, coupled with the other evidence, recorded the finding that act done by the appellant was not with the intention to kill the deceased. Learned Sessions Judge found that only the knowledge could be attributed to the appellant that his act in the given situation could lead to her death.

9. It is to be noted that at the stage of deciding the application for suspension of sentence, analysis of the evidence is not warranted. Similarly no opinion can be expressed as to the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment and order. While deciding such application the quantum of substantive sentence and the material placed on record needs to be looked into prima- facie. In my view considering the quantum of sentence and the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence. It is undisputed that there is no grievance on the part of prosecution that during the pendency of the trial the appellant had misused the liberty granted to him. It has come on record that the appellant was on bail during the trial. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that subject to 5/5 11 apeal 64.22.odt..odt

appropriate conditions the substantive sentence needs to be suspended.

10. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The substantive sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge as above shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal. The appellant shall furnish the P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and one surety in the like amount before the trial Court.

JUDGE Manisha

Signed By:MANISHA ALOK SHEWALE

Signing Date:08.09.2022 18:27