Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nati Bhaiya @ Dhanraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 602 of 2022
(NATI BHAIYA @ DHANRAJ AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-04-2022
Shri R.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
Record of the trial Court is received and the same is perused.'
I.A. No. 5056/2022, first application for suspension of sentence moved on
behalf of appellant No.3 Raghuveer Patel u/Sec. 389(1) Cr.P.C. is taken up and
considered along with the reply of the State.
This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 29.12.2021 passed in
Sessions Trial No.30/2011 by IInd Sessions Judge, Pipariya,
District Hoshangabad (M.P.), whereby appellant has been convicted as
under :-
Section Imprisonment Fine Default Sentence
U/s 302 r/w Life Imprisonment Rs.3,000/- RI for 6 months
149 IPC
The prosecution case in brief is that on 21/07/2010 informant Shivnarayan
Guzar (deceased/victim) lodged an FIR at Police Station Pipariya stating therein
that at about 12:00 noon he was going on his motorcycle along with his son Ajay-
(PW-18) and one Nati Bhaiya, S/o Mishri Lal, (PW-3). When he reached in front
of Hathwas Durga Mandir, at that time co-accused Rahees Gujar came from
behind on a motorcycle along with two other persons, whom the complainant did
not recognize. They all were having iron rods in their hands. Co-accused Rahees
stopped his motorcycle and on account of previous enmity with the complainant,
started assaulting him. The complainant left his motorcycle and when he tried to
flee, the other assailants stopped him and started assaulting him with rods.
Upon the aforesaid report, a case was registered against the appellants and
co-accused at Crime No.321/2010 by Police Station, Aarakshi Kendra Pipariya,
Signature Not Verified
SAN
District Hoshangabad against the appellants. However during the treatment
complainant died.
Digitally signed by MRS PREETI TIWARI
Date: 2022.04.11 17:42:57 IST
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated. It is argued that the name of the present
applicant/appellant No.3 is not mentioned in the FIR, as well as in the statement of
deceased recorded before his death. He further submitted that the prosecution has
not conducted the Test Identification Parade and not a single prosecution witness
has identified the present applicant/appellant No.3 as one of the assailants. It is
further submitted that the appellant No.2 was on bail during trial, therefore, prayer
is made to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant and enlarge him on bail.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the
bail application and prays for its dismissal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On perusal of record it reveals that the name of the appellant No.3/accused
is not mentioned in the FIR, as well as the statement of
the deceased recorded before his death and that no TIP was conducted
to ascertain the identity of the appellant No.3. Eye-witnesses have also not
identified the applicant/appellant No.3 as one of the assailants in their court
statements.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety
and the facts as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, but without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I.A.No.5056/2022 is allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant No.3
Raghuveer Patel will remain under suspension subject to verification that the
amount of fine has been deposited, on the appellant furnishing bail bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with two solvent sureties of the like
amount to the satisfaction of concerned available Magistrate for his appearance
before the concerned available Magistrate on 15/06/2022 and on such further dates
as may be fixed which shall be of frequency not less than once a year.
In case, appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the concerned
Magistrate then the said Magistrate shall be free to issue and execute warrant of
Signature Not Verified
SAN arrest for securing his presence without first referring the matter to this Court,
Digitally signed by MRS PREETI TIWARI
Date: 2022.04.11 17:42:57 IST
provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed. The learned concerned
Magistrate and the prosecution is directed to ensure following of Covid-19
precautionary protocol prescribed from time to time by the Supreme Court, the
Central Govt. and as well as the State Govt during release, travel and residence of
the appellant during period of suspension of sentence as a consequence of this
order.
List for final hearing in due course.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for information.
C.C. as per rules.
(SHEEL NAGU) (MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE JUDGE
P/-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MRS PREETI TIWARI
Date: 2022.04.11 17:42:57 IST
