Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prabhu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 September, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.6246/2019
Indore, Dated : 24.9.2021
Shri Bhagwan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Ms. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Submissions were made on IA No.3971/2021, which is the
first application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension
of sentence by appellant Poona, who has been convicted and
sentenced under Section 302 & 201 of IPC.
It is noteworthy that in previous order dated 23.3.2021 this
IA has wrongly been shown as "application for temporary
suspension of sentence".
As per the prosecution story, deceased Meera was found to
be missing and missing person's report was lodged on
13.12.2016. On 20.12.2016 her body was found in a lake.
Postmortem revealed several injuries on her person. On
postmortem, she was found to be pregnant. Doctor opined that
the death was homicidal in nature. The deceased was stated to be
having an affair with co-accused Prabhu, brother of the appellant
Poona and after a dispute between deceased and Prabhu, she
was allegedly murdered by Prabhu, appellant and another co-
accused.
The prosecution case is based on last seen theory. PW-3
Kailash and PW-7 Badri are the witnesses of last seen.
Learned counsel has drawn Court's attention to the fact that
the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Kailash (PW-3) were
recorded 2 to 3 months after the incident with no explanation for
such delay. It is further submitted that Badri (PW-7) has only
stated to have seen deceased and Prabhu together. It is further
stated that prosecution has not examined Reena, daughter of
Prabhu who had, first of all, allegedly told her classmate Sonu
(PW-5) that her father had kept the deceased in his house and
had later dropped her. Learned counsel has also drawn Court's
attention to judgment in the case of Sundariya @ Sundersingh
Vs. State of M.P. [2008(1) MPLJ (Cri.) 425], in which it has been
laid down that if a person deposes on the basis of information
received from some other person, then unless that person
confirms that he had given such information, the evidence of the
person deposing would be rendered hearsay. Thus, learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of Sonu
(PW-5) would be rendered hearsay and there is no evidence apart
from seizure of motorcycle from the appellant, which is
inconsequential.
Learned counsel for the State was heard, who has opposed
the application for suspension of sentence.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, mainly those
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, without
commenting upon the merits of the case, I.A.No.3971/2021 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/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.11.2021 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry, the
appellant-Poona be released on bail and the substantive
sentence under appeal shall remain suspended.
IA No.3971/2021 accordingly stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Sujoy Paul) (Shailendra Shukla)
Judge Judge
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2021.09.25 16:22:34 +05'30'
