Babloo @ Omprakash Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3371 MP

                                                                    1                              CRA-2483-2015
                                          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                     CRA-2483-2015
                                              (BABLOO @ OMPRAKASH SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   47
                                   Jabalpur, Dated : 16-07-2021
                                         Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                         Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                         Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned GA for the respondent/State.

Heard o n I.A. No.10392/2020, repeat application u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellant Babloo @ Om Prakash Sahu.

The earlier applications (I.A.No.18488/2015, 23234/2016, 18524/218) filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail was dismissed on merit vide orders dated 14/9/2016, 4/5/2018 & 26/4/2019.

T h i s appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 8/9/2015 passed by First Additional Judge of First Additional Session Judge, Mandla (M.P.) in Session Trial No. 141/2007, whereby learned Session Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 201/34 & 394/397 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500 and R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively, with default clause.

As per the prosecution case, deceased Ravishankar @ Darang Yadav was driving the vehicle (Innova), registered in the name of Rajendra Upadhyay. On 7/6/2007, he proceeded from Bilaspur to Jabalpur with appellants, who had hired the said vehicle. Thereafter, on 9/6/2007 at about 11:00 near Jogimandi Motinala dead body of Ravishankar @ Darang Yadav was found. It is alleged that the appellant along with other co-accused have committed murder of said Ravishankar @ Darang Yadav. It is also alleged that the deceased was last seen alongwith the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court without appreciating the evidence properly, wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He further submitted that the learned trial Court only on the basis that appellant was last seen with the deceased found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences while in Signature Not Verified SAN this regard statement of Omprakash (PW-18) is doubtful. There are Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2021.07.16 17:39:03 IST 2 CRA-2483-2015 s e ve r a l omissions and contradictions in his statement regarding identification of the appellant. The appellant is in jail since 8/9/2015. Hence prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellant on bail since the hearing of this appeal will take time.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence properly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. So the appellant should not be released on bail.

The Full Bench of this Court in Cr.A. No.1248/2005 (Dashrath Vs. State of M.P.) decided on 26/04/17 held that (i) The sentence of life imprisonment or imprisonment of any lesser term of the convict cannot be suspended under Section 389(1) of 'the Code' solely on the ground of his having served sentence of any particular period or one half of the maximum sentence, inclusive or exclusive of remission. To that extent, the legal proposition laid down in Raghuwar Singh's case (supra) is contrary to settled legal position. (ii) Under Section 389 of 'the Code' an appellate Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing order suspension of execution of sentence and in this regard, there has to be judicious and careful consideration of all the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension cannot be passed as a matter of routine. (iii) While considering suspension, the Court, amongst other factors, is required to consider the nature of accusation made against the accused, gravity of the offence, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed and the desirability of the accused being released on bail after conviction.

Earlier applications (I.A.No.18488/2015, 23234/2016, 18524/218) filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail was dismissed on merits vide orders dated 14/9/2016, 4/5/2018 & 26/4/2019 and all the grounds raised by the appellant were earlier considered by the Court in the aforesaid order. Thereafter there has been no change in circumstance. Looking to the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court in finding the appellant guilty and the fact that the appellant and co-accused murdered deceased Ravishankar @ Darang Yadav. So this Court is not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.10392/2020 is hereby rejected.

The appeal has already been admitted for final hearing, so it be listed for final hearing in due course.

Signature Not Verified SAN

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) (AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2021.07.16 17:39:03 IST 3 CRA-2483-2015 JUDGE JUDGE VS

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2021.07.16 17:39:03 IST