Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiva Gond vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1000 of 2016
(SHIVA GOND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-04-2022
Shri Pratap Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ritwik Parashar, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
I . A. No.4345/2022, first application u/S.389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant-Shiva Gond is taken
up and considered along with reply of the State.
This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 20.02.2016 passed in
Sessions Case No.52/2015 by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, District-
Dindori (M.P.), whereby appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 of
the IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-
with default stipulation.
As per prosecution case, complainant Harinam Singh (PW-1) lodged
an information with Police Station Karanjiya, District-Dindori to the effect that
on 26.05.2014 at about 05:00 am his nephew-Surajbhan has been murdered.
As a result of which, the prosecution proceeded to investigate and during
investigation, on the basis of statement of Balram Singh (PW-15) present
appellant was implicated and resultantly was subjected to trial and ultimately
convicted as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that in the present case there is
no eye witness. Deceased as well as appellant herein are real brothers.
However other witnesses have falsely implicated the present appellant due to
dispute over the property. He urges that nothing was seized from the
possession of present appellant except "basula' (weapon) and his shirt.
Though seizure witnesses have been turned hostile and did not support the
case of prosecution, yet the Court ventured upon to read between the lines of
the testimony of Surender Singh (PW-14) and resultantly convicted the
present appellant.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the said application and
supports the findings of the learned Court below in the impugned judgment
and submits that in paragraph Nos.41 and 42 of the impugned judgment, trial
Court discussed the testimony of seizure witnesses and since the seizure
witnesses have not denied their signature over the seizure memo, therefore,
their testimony is admissible and thus, the trial Court rightly convicted the
present appellant and prayed that he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
In the present case, there is no eye witness but the "basula' as well as
blood stained shirt of the appellant were seized however, seizure witnesses
Ganesh singh (PW-8) and Surendra Singh (PW-14) did not support the case
of prosecution though they do not dispute that they signed on the seizure
memo but specifically stated in their testimony that the police obtained their
signature on blank paper. Moreover, appellant is in jail since 26.05.2015 till
today, therefore, appellant has suffered about 7 years of incarceration and
there is no hope of concluding this appeal in near future, this Court without
entering into the merits of the matter is inclined to grant bail to appellant by
way of suspension of sentence. Hence, I.A. No.4345/2022 is allowed.
It is directed that jail sentence of appellant-Shiva Gond will remain
under suspension subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited,
and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial
Court for his appearance before CJM, Dindori on 20.06.2022 and on such
further dates as may be fixed in this regard which shall be of frequency not
less than once a year.
In case, appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the concerned
CJM, then concerned CJM shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest
for securing his presence without first referring the matter to this Court,
provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.
Learned concerned CJM and the prosecution are directed to ensure
following of Covid-19 precautionary protocol prescribed from time to time
by the Supreme Court, the Central Govt. 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.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(SHEEL NAGU) (MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE JUDGE
sp
SAVITRI PATEL
2022.04.25
18:39:13 +05'30'
