Madhya Pradesh High Court
Inder Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 7532 of 2021
(INDER KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-02-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Vishal Vincent R. Danial, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Dilip Singh Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 22036/2021 for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail of appellant Inder Kumar is taken up.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 120 (B) of IPC to
undergo RI for Life and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation, under
Section 342, r/w Section 120 (B) of IPC to undergo RI for one year and
fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation and under Section 302, r/w Section
120 (B) of IPC to undergo RI for Life and fine of Rs.2000/- with default
stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the statement of
Ashok Chandrawanshi (PW-7), Advocate a legal notice was sent by the
accused Laxmi and Ravi to the deceased. The dispute or motive was
between accused Laxmi and Ravi and the deceased. By taking this court to
the statement of prosecution witnesses number nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 17,
learned cousnel for the appellant submits that said evidence by no stretch of
imagination can be said to be credible or clinching evidence for holding
the appellant as guilty. The Vishanlal Chandrawanshi, (PW-1) did not take
the name of appellant and clearly deposed that he has not seen appellant
assaulting the deceased. He has allegedly seen the person fleeing from
the place of the incident from their back, and, therefore, he was not able
to identify them.
Roop Singh Vishwakarma, (PW-2) said that the appellant was
standing in the house whereas incident had taken place inside the house.
Harichandra, (PW-3) turned hostile.
Chaturbhuj, (PW-4) did not state anything against this appellant.
Meena Soni, (PW-5) reached to the place of incident after incident
had already taken place. He only identified co- accused, Ravi and Nandan.
Ashok Chandrawanshi, (PW-7) and Chhidamilal Vishwakarma, (PW-
17) did not support the prosecution story.
PW-17, wife of PW-2, Roop Singh, although deposed that Roop
Singh informed her that appellant assaulted the deceased, such hearsay
evidence does not inspire confidence because Roop Singh did not support
the same and his statement is other way round.
Shri Vishal Vincent R. Danial, learned counsel for the appellant has
taken pains to contend that as per recovery memo, only a 'Danda' was
recovered from this appellant, which does not have any blood stain. As per
para 109 of the judgment, the prosecution could not establish the
electronic call records for want of compliance of Section 65 -B of Indian
Evidence Act. Thus, neither ocular nor electronic evidence is sufficient to
hold the appellant as guilty. The motive is also not established. Thus, the
appellant may be given the benefit of suspension of sentence because he is
in custody from the date of incident.
Shri Dilip Singh Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State
has also taken pains to oppose the prayer and informs that 'Lathi' is
indeed recovered from the appellant. By placing reliance on PW-27 and
paras 36, 89, 92 and 95 of the judgment, he has opposed the application for
suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
objection and record.
In view of the statement of prosecution witnesses and aforesaid
factual backdrop coupled with the limited role attributed on the present
appellant, without expressing any conclusive opinion on merits of the case,
we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant-
Inder Kumar.
Subject to depositing the fine amount, (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.
Accordingly, aforesaid IA is allowed. The execution of jail sentence
o f appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that the appellant be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to appear before
the trial court, Seoni on 25.07.2022 and also on such other dates, as may
be fixed by the trial court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
C c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Date: 2022.02.09 11:48:55 IST
