Mansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15893 MP

                                - : 1 :-
                                               CRA Nos.7556/2022 & 9017/2022


         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. 7556 of 2022
   (Vikram @ Vikki S/o. Vishnu Prasad Purihit. V/s. State of M.P.)

                        CRA No. 9017 of 2022
          (Mansingh S/o. Mohanlalji Jaat. V/s. State of M.P.)
Date: 01.12.2022 :
      Shri P.K. Saxena, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Ajay Jain,
Advocate for appellant in CRA No.7556/2022.
      Shri Pradeep Kumar Lalwani, Advocate for the appellant in
M.Cr.C. No.9017/2022.
      Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, Govt. Advocate, learned Govt. Advocate
for respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.11765/2022, first application filed in CRA No.7556/2022 and I.A. No.13957/2022, first application filed in CRA No.9017/2022 under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals.

Vide judgment dated 30.7.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Javad, District Neemuch, the appellants stands convicted u/s. 120-B and 364(A) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- - 25,000/- with default stipulation.

As per prosecution story, complainant - Manoj (P.W.1) lodged the report at Police Station Sarvaniya Maharaj, Javad on 1.8.2021 that he is a businessman and on 29.6.2021 near about at 6.30 in the

- : 2 :-

CRA Nos.7556/2022 & 9017/2022

evening he went to visit Morwan Chadar on his motorcycle where two boys aged about 30-35 years came and put a gun on his chest. Thereafter, a white coloured car I-10 came and he was forced inside the car. Three boys were already sitting in the said car. They thrown chilly powder on his eyes and covered by the strip. After 2-3 hours they took him to a room and assaulted and demanded Rs. 1.5 Crore as ransom for his release. Thereafter, they took him in the night at 1.5 - 2.00 hours in the car to an open agricultural field and locked in a room. Thereafter, on 30.6.2021 in the morning at 5.00 am. they told him to make a call by mobile his family members to bring the amount, but after negotiation they agreed to accept Rs.35.00 Lakhs. He made a call to his home and told the family members to bring Rs.25.00 Lakhs in cash and also to bring the jewelry of his wife and handed over to them. Since he and his entire family were terrified, they could not lodge the report immediately. The FIR was registered vide Exh. P/2. The appellants were found spending the money in excess to their income on the basis of discrete information and accordingly they all were arrested and their mobile call details were obtained. The complainant appeared as P.W.1 but he refused to identify the appellants, however, admitted the incident took place with him. He also denied the identification in the TIP. His wife (P.W.2) and his son (P.W.3) have also admitted the demand of cash and jewelry as ransom, but did not identify the appellants. The appellants pleaded their false implication in the case by the police by calling cash and jewelry from the complainant. No such cash and jewelry was recovered from them. On the basis of the evidence came on record, learned trial Court has

- : 3 :-

CRA Nos.7556/2022 & 9017/2022

convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated first.

Shri P.K. Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant - Vikram @ Vikky and Shri Pradeep Kumar Lalwani, learned counsel appearing for appellant - Mansingh submit that when the complainant himself has failed to identify the appellants who was with them for more than 24 hours, then the entire prosecution case has become doubtful. No threat was given to P.W.1 for demanding the ram-sum. There is no medical examination. The delay of one month in lodging the FIR has not been explained properly. Hence, the appellants are entitled for suspension of their jail sentence and release on bail.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the prayer for suspension of jail sentence of appellants by submitting that the kidnapping of the complainant has been established and thereafter the recovery of the cash and jewelry has also been established. The appellants are not claiming their ownership over the recovered articles. The complainant and his family members have been winover, therefore, they are not supporting the prosecution case.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the jail sentence of the appellants - Vikram @ Vikki and Mansingh deserves to be suspended. Accordingly, I.A. No.11765/2022 filed in CRA No.7556/2022 and I.A. No.13957/2022 filed in CRA No.9017/2022 are allowed. Execution of jail sentence of the appellants - Vikram @ Vikki and Mansingh Jaat is hereby suspended and it is directed that they be released on bail on their furnishing

- : 4 :-

CRA Nos.7556/2022 & 9017/2022

personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with separate sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal. The appellants shall mark their presence before the Registry of this Court on 09.10.2023 and on all such subsequent and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.

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: 2022.12.05 18:20:59 +05'30'