Rajesh Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4298 MP

                                  1

                                                                   CRA-90-2011



        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     Criminal Appeal No.90/2011
             (Rajesh Saju and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh)

Jabalpur, Dated 13-08-2021.

      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Per Virender Singh, J. :-

      Shri      Siddharth      Datt,    learned     counsel        for    the
appellant/applicant.
      Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

I.A. No.13874/2020 is taken up.

2. Unsuccessful in his earlier four attempts of getting suspension of sentence twice on merits and twice on withdrawal of the application, applicant No.3 Golu @ Govind has filed this fifth application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his life imprisonment awarded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen vide judgment dated 31.12.2010 for committing murder of Ramvilas along with the co-accused persons.

3. The allegation against the applicant Golu is that he was having an axe at the time of the incident and wielded it on the head of the deceased. The corresponding injury was observed by the treating Doctor. Three eyewitnesses viz. Santosh (PW3), Sagar (PW5) and Vimlesh (PW8) have deposed this fact before the trial Court and their statements have been found reliable.

4. The different co-ordinate Benches of this Court have examined the matter earlier on four occasions and found the case of the applicant not fit for granting suspension.

CRA-90-2011

5. This time the entire focus of the ld. counsel for the applicant for pressing the prayer again was on medical evidence as well as the statement of Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW7). But, nothing new could have been pointed out so as to take a different view than the view taken earlier.

6. Besides, period of custody has also referred to as a ground for suspension. The ld. counsel submitted that the applicant is in jail since 12.10.2009, hence, he has suffered more than 11 years of incarceration. It is also submitted that final disposal of the appeal is likely to take time, therefore, his suspension be suspended.

7. Since there is no material change in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the allegation made against the applicant substantiated with the cogent evidence, we do not find it a fit case to allow suspension on any of the grounds taken by him. Accordingly, I.A. No.13874/2020 is rejected.

8. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to file an appropriate application for out of turn hearing of the appeal if he so wishes.

9. Being an admitted appeal, let it be listed for final hearing in due course.

                      (Prakash Shrivastava)                (Virender Singh)
                           JUDGE                              JUDGE
     vinod
Digitally signed by
VINOD VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2021.08.17
17:07:51 +05'30'