Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shanu @ Shanavaz vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
...1... CRA.No.1990/2018
HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE
(Divsion Bench :- Hon'ble Justice Shri Sujoy Paul &
Hon'ble Justice Shri Shailendra Shukla)
CRA. No.1990/2018
(Shanu @ Shanavaz vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dt.23.7.2021
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodiya, Public Prosecutor for Non-
applicant/State.
Heard on I.A.No.846/2021, which is 2nd application for
suspension of jail sentence of appellant (Shanu @ Shanavaz) who has
been convicted by the 7th ASJ, Indore and sentenced him as under :-
Sr. Conviction Sentence
No. under Section Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
1 302/34 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.3000/- 1 month's R.I.
2 324/34 of IPC 2 years RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months R.I.
3 394 of IPC 7 years RI Rs.2,000/- 6 months RI
The first application for suspension of jail sentence having been
withdrawn on 20.3.2019.
The prosecution story is that on 5.6.2014, the complainant
(Murtaza Hussain) was working in his shop, 3 persons entered in his
shop at about 9.30 PM, one of them stood guard near gate of the shop
and out of other two persons, one had been wearing a black coloured
shawl while the other was wearing a check designed shirt. The person
wearing shawl took out a country made pistol and the shirt wearing
accused took out Rs.7000/- from the shop. On being protested by the
father of the complainant (Murtaza), he was attacked by knife and
complainant was also injured by knife. On raising noise accused fled.
The father of the complainant, however succumbed to his injuries.
Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out to the
evidence of complainant Murtaza (PW11) who has identified the
appellant Shanavaz @ Shanu as one who had been wearing a shawl
and who had thereafter removed the shawl and pointed the pistol at
the complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2021.07.26
17:54:32 IST
...2... CRA.No.1990/2018
contrary to such statement, the pistol has been recovered from another
co-accused Shoaib @ Bhiku whereas appellant Shahnawaz has been
shown to have stood guard in front of the shop. Learned counsel for
the appellant submits that no recovery has been made from the present
appellant, that the identification proceedings are also not reliable
because complainant himself states that before identification parade
photographs of appellant had been shown, that there are many lacunae
in the T.I.P memo. The citation as AIR 1981 SC 1392 and other
citations mentioned in the trial Court's judgment have been resorted.
On these grounds suspension of sentence has been sought.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has
submitted that the complainant Murtaza (PW11) has stated in para 10
that he had in fact been shown 24 to 25 photographs of habitual
criminals, out of which he had identified the appellant. This manner of
identification would not render test identification parade meaningless
since it was not as if only one photograph show to Murtaza earlier.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has drawn Court's attention to
para 43 to 55 of the impugned judgment and has submitted that the
discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are
minor in nature, that the offence under which the appellant has been
convicted is very serious and henious offence and the application has
been sought to be dismissed.
Considered the submission and record was perused.
A pistol and knife have been shown to be recovered from the
co-accused Shoaib @ Bhiku while no recovery has been made from
the present appellant. As per documents on record such as
memorandum and seizure memo, it was Shoaib who had inflicted
injuries and pointed pistol on Murtaza. The evidence of Murtaza
(PW11) is inconsistent with aforesaid documents and this
inconsistency is material. This apart in view of other submissions
mainly those made by learned counsel for the appellant, a case is
made out for allowing the application for suspension of jail sentence
of appellant. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case,
I.A.No.846/2021 is allowed and it is directed that upon appellant's
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2021.07.26
17:54:32 IST
...3... CRA.No.1990/2018
furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the
substantive jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till
the final disposal of the appeal and he shall be released on bail, for his
regular appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24.8.2021 and
all other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Office.
List for final hearing in due course of time.
C.c. as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SHILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2021.07.26
17:54:32 IST
