Tony @ Nitin @ Amit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8218 MP

1


            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

                         CRA No. 4756 of 2017
             (TONY @ NITIN @ AMIT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)



                      04-12-2021
Indore, Dated :


         Mr M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.

         Mr Sudhanshu Vyas, learned counsel for the respondents

State.

01. Heard on IA No. 15794/2021 which is third application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant [email protected] Nitin @Amit, S/o Ghanshyam Pandey.

2. The present appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation by learned Special Judge under ( SC & ST) Act, West Nimar, Mandleshwar (M.P.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 33/2021 vide judgment dated 06-09-2017.

03. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present appellant has completed more than nine years of jail sentence. The allegation against him is of assaulting the deceased with a sharp edged weapon on the left side of his chest. The incident is said to have occurred on the spur of the moment and there would not be any element of premeditation for the same. The case of the appellant would hence fall under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302, hence in view of the period of custody already undergone by the appellant his jail

sentence deserves to be suspended.

04. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the prayer and has prayed for rejection of the application submitting that the eye witnesses have specifically stated regarding assault of appellant by a deadly weapon on the chest of the deceased which resulted in his death. It would hence be a case under Section 302 of the IPC.

05. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. It appears that a fight had ensued between the deceased and the appellant who inflicted single blow by a sharp edged weapon on the chest of the deceased. There is no allegation of any premeditation on the part of the appellant for assaulting the deceasedcommitting the crime. Appellant already remained in jail for a period of more than nine years and nine months. This appeal is of the year 2017 and it is likely to take long time for coming up for hearing. Thus, considering the allegations against the appellant and the period of custody undergone by him, we deem it fit that the application for suspension of custodial sentence deserves to be allowed.

07. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, IA No.15794/2021 is allowed subject to deposit the fine amount (if already not deposited ) and it is directed that on furnishing a personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his regular appearance before concerned trial Court, the execution

of the custodial part of the sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.

08. The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the concerned trial Court on 24.01.2022 and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the concerned Court in this regard.

Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(SUJOY PAUL)                                    (PRANAY VERMA)
  JUDGE                                              JUDGE


rashmi




RASHMI PRASHANT
2021.12.07 12:03:14 +05'30'