Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 August, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
Cr.A. No.5679/2020
(Manoj Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
-1-
Indore, dated 31/08/2021
Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Valmik Sakargaye, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent / State.
Heard on I.A. No.12391/2021, which is first application filed
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on
behalf of the appellant -Manoj.
The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Fine If Imprisonment in
Imprisonment deposited lieu of fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment 2000/- R.I. For 6 months
Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that
applicant/appellant has been falsely implicated in this offence. He has
served more than 6 years of imprisonment. The trial court has
committed error in convicting the appellant relying upon the evidence,
which are not proved by the prosecution.
As per law, appellant was not present at the time of incident.
Prosecution has completely failed to establish the guilt of the appellant
in connection with the alleged crime. Learned trial court has committed
gross error in convicting the appellant based upon the circumstantial and
last seen evidence, which are not duly proved by the law. Prosecution
has failed to examine the material witnesses. There are so many
material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses and final conclusion of trial is likely to take a
sufficient long time, under these circumstances, he prays that execution
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
Cr.A. No.5679/2020
(Manoj Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
of jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.
Per contra, learned government advocate for the respondent/State
opposes the application and prays for its rejection by stating that
impugned judgment of conviction is based upon the proper appreciation
of oral as well as documentary evidence. The impugned judgment is
justified and the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond doubt.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Undoubtedly, from the perusal of the impugned judgment and
evidence available on record, it is clear that the cause of the death of
deceased is fully proved by Dr. Mohit Shrivastava PW-17 and Dr.
Sudhir Sharma PW-16. In their opinion, the deceased died due to
throatening which resulted in strangulation and cardiac respiratory
arrest. The aforesaid medical evidence is well supported by other oral
evidence available on record. In view of the matter, at this stage, it
cannot be said that there is no evidence available against the present
appellant.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and in view of the overwhelming evidence regarding last
seen evidence clubbed by medical evidence, we are of the considered
opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail and suspension of
execution of jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A.
No.12391/2021 is hereby rejected.
C.C. as per rules.
(Sujoy Paul) (Anil Verma)
Judge Judge
N.R.
Digitally signed
by NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Date: 2021.09.01
16:37:28 +05'30'
