Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 July, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CR. A. No. 1086 / 2018
SHIVLAL Vs. STATE OF MP
--- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 26/07/2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Mr. Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent - State.
Heard on I.A.No. 18305/2021, which is second application
under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
for grant of bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence.
Earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
27/06/2018.
The present appellant has been convicted u/S. 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life with fine Rs.5,000/- vide judgment dated9/1/2018 passed
by the Special Sessions Judge, West Nimar (Mandleshwar) in
S.T.No. 32/2016.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire
case of the prosecutions depends upon the statement of eye-
witness Karan Singh (PW 7), but there are so many material
contradictions and omissions in the testimony of Karan Singh
(PW 7) regarding manner of incident and his participation.
Evidently appellant and Karan Singh (PW 7) had previous
enmity, hence the trial Court has erred in law in not appreciating
the facts in its true perspective, appellant has suffered more than
3 years of imprisonment and hearing of the appeal would take
substantial time. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for
the appellant prays for grant of bail and suspension of execution
of remaining jail sentence to the appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - State has
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CR. A. No. 1086 / 2018
SHIVLAL Vs. STATE OF MP
--- 2 ---
strongly opposed the prayer for suspension of execution of jail
sentence and grant of bail and submits in reply that sufficient
evidence is available on record to establish guilt of the appellant
in the alleged offence. On the basis of cogent and reliable
evidence, the appellant was properly convicted and sentenced by
the trial Court. Therefore, no case for suspension of execution of
jail sentence is made out and the application be dismissed.
After perusal of the record it is revealed that Karan Singh
(PW 7) was the sole eye witness. Although learned counsel for
the appellant has stated that there are so many contradictions and
omissions in the testimony of Karan Singh (PW 7), however,
such contradictions and omissions are not material in nature.
Statement of Karan Singh (PW 7) is also supported by other
witnesses as well as medical evidence available on record.
On due consideration of the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and also the role attributed to the
appellant, we are not inclined to grant bail and suspend the
execution of remaining jail sentence. Accordingly, I.A.No.
18305/2021 is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
KR
Digitally signed by KAMAL RATHORE
Date: 2021.07.26 14:45:46 +05'30'
