Devisingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3754 MP

                                      1
  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4808 OF 2019
         (Devisingh and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh)


Indore, Dated 30.07.2021
       Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 -
Mangilal @ Mangu S/o Bhagirath Mungiya.
       Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned public prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
       Arguments heard through video conferencing.
                                ORDER

Per Shailendra Shukla, J:

Heard on IA No.19327/2021 which is an application for urgent hearing of the case.

Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the application, the application for urgent hearing stands allowed. Accordingly, IA No.19327/2021 stands disposed of.

Heard on IA No.19326/2021 which is first application filed under Section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant No.3 Mangilal @ Mangu S/o Bhagirath Mungiya who has been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Badnavar, District-Dhar (MP) in Session Trial No.19/2017 vide judgment dated 08.05.2019 and sentenced him as under:-

                Conviction                          Sentence
       Section & Act   Imprisonment       Fine Amount    Imprisonment
                                                          in lieu of fine
        302 of IPC          Life           Rs.10,000/-    3 months RI.
                       Imprisonment

It has been submitted that the co-accused Tejaram has already been enlarged on bail on 16.07.2021 and although the submissions were made on behalf of present appellant also on the last date but his submissions were not considered because of

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4808 OF 2019 (Devisingh and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh)

absence of suspension application by the appellant at that point of time. The suspension of present appellant has been sought on the ground of parity with that of co-accused-Tejaram.

Heard learned counsel for the State who submits that the body of deceased was found in the agricultural field of present appellant.

Considered.

This Court vide order dated 16.07.2021 had allowed the suspension application of co-accused Tejaram considering the fact that the contents of FSL report have not been brought to the notice of accused in his accused statements. The same ground has been taken in respect of present appellant also. Hence we are inclined to allow the suspension application of appellant No.3- Mangilal S/o Bhagirath Mungiya, as the case is based on circumstantial evidence of which the FSL report is an integral part and the contents of FSL report have not been confronted to the appellant in his accused statements.

Accordingly it is directed that the substantive jail sentence of the appellant No.3 Mangilal @ Mangu S/o Bhagirath Mungiya is suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10.11.2021 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf. Accordingly, IA No.19326/2021 stands disposed of.

It is being observed that trial Courts at times are not giving

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4808 OF 2019 (Devisingh and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh)

due attention to the questions which must be confronted to the accused in their accused statements specially in such heinous offence. The trial Court is required to frame the accused statements in such a manner so as to confront the accused with all the relevant evidence against him. The present case is a glaring example of such lapse which has its own consequential ramifications.

We consider it appropriate to remand the matter back to the trial Court directing the trial Court to frame appropriate accused statements bringing out the ingredients of FSL report and seek his answers. The Presiding Officer shall send the matter back to this Court after due compliance within a period of thirty days after receipt of certified copy of this order.

A copy of this order be also despatched to the Director, Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Academy, Jabalpur (MP) so that Judicial Officers of the State may be sensitized adequately regarding the requirement of due attention to be bestowed while framing accused statements so that it is not rendered a formal and mechanical exercise which at times is evident in cases, such as in the present case.

Record has been received.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per Rules.

             (SUJOY PAUL)                            (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
               JUDGE                                       JUDGE

 Arun/-

Digitally signed by ARUN
NAIR
Date: 2021.07.31 07:58:32
+05'30'