Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5736 MP

                                - : 1 :-
                                                        CRA No. 1035/2012



        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH INDORE
   BEFORE DIVISION BENCH OF HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK
   RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
                         CRA No. 1035 of 2012
             (Mukesh S/o. Ramsingh Bhil V/s. State of M.P.)
Date: 20.04.2022 :
      Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.4782/2022 first application for suspension of sentence filed under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant.

The appellant stands been convicted vide judgment dated 22.06.2012 passed in Session Trial No.73/2008 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.), Mandsaur as below:-

Conviction U/s. Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine.

148 of IPC.         1 year RI              1,000/-    1 month RI
323/149 of IPC. 1 year RI                  1,000/-    1 month RI
302/149 of IPC. Life Imprisonment.         10,000/-   3 months RI

According to the prosecution case, on 23.05.2008 all the accused persons came to the house of the complainant Pyaari Bai and started alleging that she indulged into the activities of witch hunting and with an intention to kill one of them assaulted by means of stick. Her daughter namely Manju came to rescue her and she was assaulted. She was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead. The

- : 2 :-

CRA No. 1035/2012

autopsy was conducted and Dr. Rewa Shankar Johari (P.W.-12) was opined that she died because of the rapture of the spleen. Other injuries found were minor in nature.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already completed 13 years and 10 months incarceration and the appeal is not likely to come for final hearing in near future. There is no specific allegation that out of five accused who have caused the fatal injuries. At the most the case would not travel more than section 304 (Part-I or II) of the IPC. It is also not the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons went to the house of complainant in order to kill Manju Bai. In these circumstances learned counsel prays for suspension of the appellant.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allegations against appellant and period of custody and there is no likelihood of final hearing of this criminal appeal in near future, without commenting on the merits of the case I.A. No.4782/2022 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount, if already not deposited, with the trial Court and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till final disposal of this appeal.

The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his

- : 3 :-

CRA No. 1035/2012

presence before the Registry of this Court on 26.09.2022 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this behalf.

I.A. Nos. 4781/2022, an application for early hearing of the appeal stand disposed of.

List for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

         [ VIVEK RUSIA ]           [AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)]
             JUDGE.                        JUDGE.
Alok/-

 Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
 Date: 2022.04.21 12:58:48 +05'30'