Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tejugiri And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
(DIVISION BENCH.: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
& MR. JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA)
Criminal Appeal No.442/2011
(Tejugiri V/s State of M.P.)
Date: 21.12.2021:
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No. 22753/2021
first application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for suspension of a custodial sentence of appellant
No.1 - Tejugiri.
The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 11.03.2011 passed by Additional Session judge,
Link Court, District Mandsaur whereby they have been convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,500/-
with default stipulation.
As per impugned judgment, the prosecution story is as
under:
On 20.10.2009 at about 11:00 the complainant reported that
deceased was her husband and was having dispute Tejugiri
(applicant) and co-accused Dasrath Giri for partition of family
property. She went to farm alongwith her husband and daughter
Uma to talk about the partition. During the talk Tejugiri and
Dasrath giri began to beat her husband, they caused 4-5 blow of
stone on stomach and hands of the deceased, due to which he died.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
- : 2 :-
was real brother of the deceased. The dispute arose in agriculture
field. The incident in question took place on a sudden fight without
any premeditation and the act of the appellant hitting the deceased
was committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. There
was no premeditation or pre-planned in commission of crime.
There was no intention to cause the murder, therefore, at the most
offence would fall under Section 304 (Part - I ) of I.P.C. for which
he has already undergone 12 years of incarceration. The appeal is
likely to take considerable time for its final hearing and if their
custodial sentence is not suspended, the application may be
rendered infructuous. He, therefore, prayed that the custodial
sentence of the appellants be suspended and they shall be released
on bail.
Government Advocate opposes the prayer made by appellant
and prays for its rejection.
The second prayer for suspension of remaining jail sentence
of appellant was rejected in the year 2012 and now nine years have
been passed. The sentence of appellant No.2 has already been
suspended by this Court. It is correct that the dispute arose
between the appellant and the deceased as sudden of provocation
and there was no premeditation and pre-planned in commission of
crime. Hence, we are of the view that the application filed by the
appellant No.1 is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 22753/2021 is allowed and it is
directed that on furnishing personal bond by the appellant No.1 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 this Court, the execution
of custodial part of the sentence imposed against the appellant
- : 3 :-
No.1 shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant No.1 after being enlarged from custody, shall
mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 22.09.2022
and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry
in this regard.
C.C.as per Rules.
( VIVEK RUSIA ) ( PRANAY VERMA )
JUDGE JUDGE
praveen
PRAVEEN NAYAK
2021.12.21 18:20:01
+05'30'
