Naval Chand Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2267 MP

                                   1                              CRA-2584-2019
          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                     CRA-2584-2019
           (NAVAL CHAND SONI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

19
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-06-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the appellants.
      Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, learned P.L. for the respondent-State.

This appeal has already been admitted for final hearing vide order 15.10.2020.

Heard on I.A. No.308/2021, which is first application for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.2-Baldao.

The appellants have preferred the appeal against the judgment dated 14.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Teonthar, District- Rewa in Session Trial No.100143/2016.

Appellant No.2 stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326-A of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months, Section 324 (in relation to injured-Ravichand) of IPC and has been

sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months and Section 324 (in relation to injured-Sushma) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months.

As per prosecution case, on 29.05.2016, at about 11:05 am, complainant-Ravichand Soni (PW-6) lodged the FIR (Ex.P/3) against the present appellant and other co-accused alleging therein that his children threw the rinds of mango near the house of appellants due to which, some hot-talk started between them who are neighbours. It is alleged that after some hot talks and abuses; co-accused Kamla Bai @ Gudiya gave the bottle of acid to the co-accused Naval and present appellant who threw the acid/tezab on the 2 CRA-2584-2019 brother of complainant i.e. Kallu @ Ramchandra (PW-1) as a result of which, victim Ramchandra got injured seriously. During intervention to save the injured-Ramchandra, complainant (PW-6) and his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Sushma (PW-2) have also received burnt injuries on their body parts.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant No.2 on the basis of statement of

interested witnesses. Indeed, on account of some trivial dispute, the victim Ramchandra Soni came to the accused side carrying acid and during scuffling, he himself got injured accidentally. The accused side have also received some burn injuries in the said incident. The trial Court did not consider the defence of appellants'/accused. Complainant party was aggressor and they brought acid from their house which was kept for cleaning jewellery, they involved in the jewellery business. The present appellant had no intention to cause grievous injury to the Ramchandra (PW-1). The prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer as a witness before the trial Court. Other co-accused Naval and Kamla have been enlarged on bail by this Court. The case of prosecution is very doubtful. It is alleged by the prosecution that co-accused-Kamla Bai gave bottle of acid to co-accused- Naval and present appellant then present appellant and co-accused-Naval threw the acid/tezab upon Ramchandra but at the time of incident, co- accused-Kamla was admitted at hospital. Dr. T.P. Singh (DW-1) deposed before the trial Court that at the time of incident, co-accused Kamla Bai was admitted at his hospital for treatment and he operated her. Apart from this, it is alleged by the prosecution that the co-accused Naval also threw the said acid upon victim-Ramchandra but during the trial, this version has changed by the prosecution witnesses and they stated that co-accused-Naval caught hold the victim-Ramchandra. So, there is material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution. Besides the above, the appellant is in jail since 30.05.2016, so he has already served half of jail sentence. He also submits that there is many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the 3 CRA-2584-2019 version of the prosecution witnesses. There is fair chances to succeed in the appeal. Appeal is of the year 2019 and final hearing of this appeal will take time in its final disposal. If the appellant is not released on bail, purpose of filing this appeal will be futile. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended and he may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the submission of appellant's counsel and prays for rejection of application.

Heard and perused the record.

On perusal of record, it appears that both the parties are neighbour

and due to trivial matter dispute occurred between them. It is found proved by the trial Court that the present appellant was the person who threw the acid upon the victim Ramchandra (PW-1).

The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the conviction of present appellant No.2 taking defence that the victim Ramchandra was aggressor and on account of earlier dispute, he came to accused side carrying acid and during scuffle, he himself got injured accidentally. He has also pointed out the statement of Dr. M.D. Patel (PW-9) wherein he accepted that the present appellant was also sustained some burn injury. The appellant is in jail since 30.05.2016, has already suffered half of jail sentence out of 10 years of conviction.

Considering the evidence available on record as well as defence raised by the appellant's counsel and also looking to the fact that the appellant has already suffered half of jail sentence out of 10 years of conviction and appeal will take sufficient time in its final disposal, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence awarded to the appellant No.2 and grant bail to him. Consequently, I.A. No.308/2021 is allowed subject to depositing of fine amount, if already not deposited. The custodial 4 CRA-2584-2019 sentence awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.

Appellant No.2-Baldao Soni be released from custody subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant shall appear and mark his presence before the trail Court on 25.08.2021 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.

I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the appellant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo m o t o W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-

1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the appellant by the jail doctor before his release.

2 . The appellant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.

3 . If it is found that the appellant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.

List this matter for final hearing in due course, as per listing policy. C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2021.06.16 17:22:37 +05'30'