Umesh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 16357 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 7866 of 2022 (UMESH YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 09-12-2022 Shri Ashok Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manhar Dixit, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Appeal being arguable is admitted for hearing. I. A. No.16857/2022, an application filed u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence is taken up and considered alongwith the reply of the

State.

This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 03.08.2022 passed in S.T. No.59/2018 by the Sessions Judge, Mandla (M.P.) whereby appellant has been convicted u/S.395 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for suspension of sentence is made out.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has suffered a little

less than 2 years of incarceration (including the period when the trial was going on).

State counsel informs that appellant was absconding during trial which commenced sometime in 2017/18. Appellant was arrested as late as on 05.05.2022.

Record further reveals that appellant though was arrested immediately after the incident but was granted bail thereafter during trial. However, the appellant absconded during trial for nearly 3 to 4 years to be arrested as late as Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATEESH KUMAR SEN Signing time: 12/9/2022 5:49:19 PM

on 05.05.2022. The impugned judgment was pronounced on 03.08.2022.

Learned counsel for appellant relying upon the orders of suspension of sentence of co-convicted persons namely Harendra Narvariya, Rajkumar Sharma @ Fauji and Saurabh Singh Tomar, submits that case of other co- convicted persons are similar to the present appellant.

Record reveals that the said three co-convicted persons namely Harendra Narvariya, Rajkumar Sharma @ Fauji and Saurabh Singh Tomar had suffered about 4-5 years of incarceration when their sentences were suspended, whereas the appellant has suffered a little less than 2 year of incarceration and also suffers from the stigma of absconding from the clutches of law during trial

which caused delay of about 2 to 3 years in completing the trial.

In view of above, grant of suspension of sentence to the appellant at this stage would amount to grant of premium to default, and therefore, no case for suspension of sentence is made out.

Accordingly, I.A. No.16857/2022 stands rejected. However, appellant is at liberty to revisit the Court after suffering some further reasonable period of custody.

C.C. as per rules.

(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE

Sateesh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATEESH KUMAR SEN Signing time: 12/9/2022 5:49:19 PM