Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babar Khan vs State Of M.P. on 12 November, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 CRA No.5149/2020
CRA No.5149/2020
Indore, Dated : 12.11.2021
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned senior counsel with Shri
Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant-Babar Khan.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.27145/2021, which is an application for
suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant Babar Khan. The
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction u/S. Sentence Fine Imprisonment in
lieu of payment of
fine
147 IPC 2 years' R.I. Rs.500/- 1 months' S.I.
302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.2,000/- 3 months' S.I.
25 Arms Act 1 year's R.I. Rs.500/- 1 month's S.I.
As per the prosecution story, one Javed was shot dead by co-
accused Imran and the appellant and other co-accused were found
to be part of the unlawful assembly along with the main accused
Imran.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn Court's attention
to Para-17 of the judgment of the trial Court, as per which
complainant Athar Beg (PW-1) and all other witnesses have turned
hostile. Further attention was drawn to Para-44 of the judgment, in
which it has been held that prosecution has not been able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that accused Babar and Asif etc.
committed riot armed with dangerous weapons such as pistol etc. He
further submits that evidence of riot having not been found proved,
charge under any other Section with the help of Section 149 of IPC
could not have been found proved. It has also been stated that
contrary to the prosecution story that Babar was wielding a pistol, he
has been acquitted from the charge framed under Section 25 of the
Arms Act. He further submits that in Para-79 of the judgment, the trial
Court has made it clear that there is no evidence that any other
person apart from Imran had fired on the deceased. Attention was
also drawn to the deposition of Athar Beg (PW-1), who in Para-5
names all five accused persons along with the present appellant has
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
having attacked to complainant and the deceased, but the aforesaid
statements have not been made in Ex.P/1 i.e. FIR and this fact has
been confronted to him in Para-19. In para-24 he again states that
he had not named all five persons in the police station and in police
station people were only taking about co-accused Nasir and Gabbu.
In para-28 he admits that he had been asked by the police that
whoever accused is brought before him, he should identify the same.
On these grounds application for suspension of sentence has been
sought to be allowed.
Learned counsel for the State was heard, who has opposed
the application for suspension of sentence.
Considered.
On due consideration of the aforesaid submissions, mainly
those advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, a case is
made out for allowing the application for suspension of sentence.
Accordingly IA No.27145/2021 is allowed and 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/- (fifty thousand rupees)
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 13.12.2021 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the
Registry, the appellant-Babar Khan be released on bail and the
substantive sentence under appeal shall remain suspended.
IA No.27145/2021 stands disposed off.
Matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(Sujoy Paul) (Shailendra Shukla)
Judge Judge
trilok/-
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2021.11.16 13:22:15 +05'30'
