Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 June, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-2205-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-2205-2019
(MUKESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
25
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sandeep Mahawar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.921/2021, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Mukesh.
The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the
Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated 01.02.2019
passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Atrocities) Act, District-Khandwa
(MP) in Special Case No.SCATR 98/2017, by which the appellant has been
convicted for offence under Sections 354-D of IPC and has been sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 1 years with fine of Rs.500/-, Section 354-(i)(iv) of IPC
and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 years with fine of Rs. 500/-,
Section 309 of IPC and has been fined of Rs. 500/-, Section 307 of IPC and
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-,
Section 450 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with
fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 3(2)(5-ka) of SC/ST Act and has been fined of
Rs. 500/-. Default stipulations have also been imposed by the trial Court.
Prosecution case, in short, is that on 02.06.2017, at 11:00 am,
complainant (PW-1) was washing cloths in her house, at that time
appellant/accused came there and he proposed marriage with her.
Complainant refused him, thereafter appellant/accused entered into the house
of complainant and inflicted injury her with knife which is dangerous to life.
Appellant/accused also inflicted injury himself with knife.
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that learned trial
Court committed grave error to convict and sentence the appellant/accused.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in perspective way.
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.06.11 17:15:48 IST
2 CRA-2205-2019
Actually, no case is made out against the appellant/accused under Section 307
of IPC. It is admitted that no fracture is found on the body of complainant.
Complainant is examined by Dr. Vijay Morya (PW-7). He found one incised
wound on her neck and four incised wound on the forearms of the
complainant. He opined that injuries can be dangerous to life if medical
treatment is not provided timely. So, this is a case of Section 326 of IPC.
Appellant/accused loves the complainant. Therefore, there is no intention to
commit her death. Apart from this, there is material contradictions and
omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Appellant/accused also inflicted
injury himself with knife. He was examined by Dr. Priya Kapoor (DW-1) and
one injury is found on his neck. Appellant/accused is in custody since.
30.06.2017, so he has served almost 4 years and 6 months sentence out of 7
years jail sentence. Therefore, he has served almost substantial sentence.
This appeal is of the year 2019. There are fair chances to succeed in the
appeal. Final hearing of this appeal will take time. Therefore, the application
filed on behalf of the appellant may be allowed and the period of his
remaining jail sentence may be suspended further and he may be released on
bail.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the
application.
Considering the argument of both the parties and perused the record, it
appears that Dr. Vijay Morya (PW-7) opined that injury of complainant is
dangerous to life if medical treatment is not provided timely.
Appellant/accused also inflicted injury himself. Appellant/accused has served
almost 4 years and 6 months sentence out of 7 years jail sentence. This
appeal is of the year 2019. It is time of COVID-19 due to this final hearing of
this appeal will take time, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am o f the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to
suspend the execution of jail sentence awarded to the appellant and grant bail
to him.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.06.11 17:15:48 IST
3 CRA-2205-2019
Consequently, I.A. No.921/2021 is allowed subject to deposit of fine
amount, if not already deposited. The custodial sentence awarded to the
appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.
Appellant-Mukesh 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 trial Court on
16.08.2021 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates, as may be
given by the trial Court 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
moto 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 the matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
L.R.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.06.11 17:15:48 IST
