Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdeesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-1659-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 1659 of 2019
(JAGDEESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-12-2021
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ram Jee Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Appeal is already admitted for hearing by order dated 27.3.2019.
Heard on I.A. No.11959/2020, which is repeat (second)
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-
Jagdeesh. Earlier application being I.A.No.3416/2019 is dismissed as
withdrawn by order dated 6.5.2019.
Accused/appellant has been convicted against judgment dated
28.1.2019 passed by learned Special Judge O.A.W. Burhanpur, District
Burhanpur (MP) in Special Case No. 75/2016, by which the appellant
has been convicted for offence under Sections 376(1) of IPC and has
been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and
Section 506(2) of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years
with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that learned
trial Court committed grave error to convict and sentence to the
appellant/accused. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in
perspective way. Although, it appears that application under Section 389
of Cr.P.C. has been rejected on 6.5.2019 by this Court, but at that time
material facts were not considered. Actually, at the time of incident,
some dispute arose between both the parties in respect of fetching of
water from hand-pump. Due to this, accused/appellant has been falsely
implicated in this case. Prosecutrix disclosed about all the incident to
Jhakuli Bai (PW/1), her husband Dinesh (PW/4), father-in-law Kashiram
(PW/5), neighbours Gulabi Bai (PW/7), Kailash (PW/8), Prem Singh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.12.15 13:14:05 IST
2 CRA-1659-2019
(PW/9) and Ramesh (PW/13). These witnesses stated before the trial
Court that prosecutrix told them that accused/appellant caught hold her.
Prosecutrix did not disclose any fact with regard to intercourse with her
by the accused/ appellant. Dr. Urmila Nanawati (PW/11) examined
prosecutrix. She stated before the trial Court that no sign of struggle is
found on the body of prosecutrix. The evidence of prosecutrix (PW/3) is
not wholly reliable. She admitted that accused/ appellant beat him and he
received injury in both hands, elbow, back side, palm, but no injury was
found on her body. The appellant has served 5 years 2 months sentence
out of 10 years, the appellant-accused has already served half actual
sentence out of 6 years. There are material contradictions and omissions
in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. This appeal is of year 2019. It
will take time for final hearing. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4633/2021. It is opined
by Hon'ble the Apex Court that "there may be even convicts in custody
in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the
broad parameter of 50 per cent of the actual sentence undergone can
be the basis for grant of bail." There is fair chance to succeed in the
appeal. Under these circumstances, i f the sentence of the
appellant/accused is not suspended, purpose to file this appeal will be
futile. Hence, prayer is made for suspension of execution of jail sentence
and grant of bail to the present accused/appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the same
submitting that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence is based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary
evidence and the appellant has committed grave offence. Therefore,
Signature Not Verified
SAN
sentence of the appellant should not be suspended.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.12.15 13:14:05 IST
3 CRA-1659-2019
Hearing arguments of both the parties and the facts that the husband
of prosecutrix and other witnesses did not disclose this fact before the
trial Court that prosecutrix told them with regard to committing
intercourse by the accused/appellant, the appellant has served 5 years 2
months sentence out of 10 years, the appellant-accused has already
served half actual sentence out of 6 years, this appeal is of year 2019, it
will take time for final hearing but without commenting anything on the
merits of the case, I.A.No. 11959/2020 is allowed.
It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already
deposited, the execution of jail sentence of accused/appellant-Jagdeesh
shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall
be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance
before the trial Court on 08.03.2022 and thereafter on all other such
subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard.
In case, accused/appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the
trial Court then the said Court shall be free to issue and execute warrant
of arrest without referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry
of this Court is kept informed.
List this matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.12.15 13:14:05 IST
