[email protected] vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 4729 MP

                                       1




                HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     Criminal Appeal No. 4045/2021

             (Mohd,. Vaheed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)

JABALPUR; Dated: 26.08.2021
Heard through Video Conferencing
      Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Manoj Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for the State.
      Heard on admission.
      Admit.
1.

Heard on I.A. No.12478/2021, which is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of the appellant.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 25 1B a of the Arms Act, 1959 and has been awarded R.I. For 1 year with Fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

3. The case of the prosecution reflects that the appellant along with four co accused persons entered in a marriage Pandal, threatened the people and when the Baratis objected their entry, they slapped them and two of them Jageera (appellant) and Irfan fired gun shot. When the gun fire missed, as the complainant timely bowed down, he beat him with the handle of Katta. They also destroyed the food, thrown the containers and utensils and fled away from the spot. After investigation the police filed Charge-sheet.

4. The appellant along with other co-accused persons charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 294, 427, 323 I.P.C and after the trial they have been acquitted from all the charges except the appellant who has been acquitted from the other charges but has been convicted under Section 25 1B a of the Arms Act and has been awarded aforestated sentence.

5. The appellant has doubted recovery of fire arm from the possession of him stating that it has been recovered after about more than a month of

the incident and that both the independent witnesses Mahboob (PW-4) and Krishnapal Singh (PW-7) have not supported the seizure. Whereas, learned Panel Lawyer has supported the recovery. He referred to the statement of Seizing Officer Sub Inspector D.K. Pushpkar who has been examined as prosecution witness No. 11. He also referred to paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment to support his contention stating that the Trial Court has observed that there is nothing to disbelieve or suspect the statement of Seizing Officer or the recovery made by him.

6. On due consideration of the statement of the Seizing Officer and other and other facts and circumstances of the case, I.A. No.12478/2021 is allowed.

7. It is directed that on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 20.12.2021 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the appellant Mohd. Vaheed shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.

8. List the matter for final hearing in due course.

(Virender Singh) V. JUDGE VIVEK

Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 2021.08.27 17:06:18 +05'30'