Sher Mohammad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1944 MP

                                                                     1                               CRA-1611-2021
                                           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                      CRA-1611-2021

(SHER MOHAMMAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Jabalpur, Dated : 10-05-2021 Heard through Video Conferencing.

Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pradeep Singh, learned Government Advocate for the State. Heard on IA No.3898/2021 which is an application for suspension of sentence of appellant Sher Mohammad.

The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.2,000/- and R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. He further submits that no incriminating circumstances exist as against the present appellant and the appellant has been implicated only on the basis of the memorandum Exhibit P/19 recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence

Act. He further submits that PW/7 Natthu Prasad, the witness of the memorandum, has not supported the prosecution case and nothing has been seized from the appellant in pursuance to the said memorandum. He further submits that no cogent evidence against the appellant has been found and discussed by the trial court and in paragraph 91 of the judgment, only the defence of the appellant has been examined. He also submitted that even on the basis of statement of PW/1 Jamna Prasad and PW/2 Kaushal Prasad Dubey, the appellant cannot be connected with the alleged offence. He has also submitted that the trial court in paragraph 115 of the judgment while noting the circumstances has not found any relevant circumstance connecting the appellant with the offence.

Signature Not Verified SAN Learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the

Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2021.05.17 15:48:30 IST 2 CRA-1611-2021 application and has submitted that a false plea of alibi was raised by the appellant.

Having regard to the circumstances which have been pointed out by the counsel for the appellant and also considering the fact that nothing has been seized from the present appellant and the nature of material which has come on record, we are of the opinion that a case for suspension of sentence is

made out.

Accordingly, IA No.3898/2021 is allowed. It is directed that on deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19.07.2021 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court, the appellant Sher Mohammad be released on bail and the substantive sentence under appeal shall remain suspended.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                        (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)                          (ATUL SREEDHARAN)
                                               V. JUDGE                                        V. JUDGE


                                   YS




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR
SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2021.05.17 15:48:30 IST