Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 4388 of 2018
(ARVIND SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-04-2022
Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.
Shri Ayush Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Heard o n IA.29593/2021. This is the fourth repeat application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of sole appellant- Arvind Singh
seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. His earlier two applications
(IA.7096/2021 & IA.309/2020) were rejected on merits vide orders dated
30/04/2021 and 11/02/2020 respectively.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced
to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.50,000/- with default
stipulation, vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated
18/8/2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.350/2013 by Third Additional
Sessions Judge, Morena.
A s per prosecution story, on 04/6/2013 at about 11:30 pm present
applicant along with other accused persons stopped the deceased- Parashram
while he was on his way to Shikarpur Phatak from Morena and gave Iron Rod
b lo w on the upper side of his right ear. Thereafter, all accused persons
caused injuries to the deceased on various part of his body as a result of
which the deceased succumbed to injuries.
Shri Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant, while taking exception
to the impugned judgment, contends that the Sessions Judge has committed
grave illegality while having ignored the relevant piece of evidence and as a
result the judgment suffers from perversity. Therefore, the appellant is
innocent and he has falsely been implicated. The conviction and sentence
awarded is wholly unwarranted. In the alternative, learned counsel submits
that the appellant has already suffered jail incarceration for almost 7 & 1/2
years and six co-accused persons have already been acquitted by the Court
below. There is no likelihood of the appeal coming up for hearing in the near
future. Hence, learned counsel for appellant prays for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the present appellant.
Per contra, Shri Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing
for State opposes the application supporting the order impugned with
submission that learned Sessions Judge upon threadbare examination of the
evidence placed on record has reached the flawless conclusion establishing
the charges levelled against the appellant. Thus, the conviction ordered and
sentence awarded is based upon relevant evidence. Hence, no exception
thereto can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case but regard being had to the fact that appellant has suffered jail
incarceration for almost 7 & 1/2 years and there is no likelihood of early
hearing of the appeal in the near future, in the obtaining facts and
circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that
sentence awarded to the appellant may be suspended pending disposal of the
appeal.
Consequently, IA.29593/2021 deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant-Arvind
Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The
appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on
14/06/2022 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
IA.29593/2021 stands closed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
PAWAN
KUMAR
2022.04.04
11:33:22
+05'30'
pwn*
