Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1947 MP

                                     1
           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                     CRA No. 996 of 2017
                  (RAJESH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Jabalpur, Dated : 11-02-2022
       Heard through Video Conferencing.

       Shri Surendra Singh, Learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ashwani Dubey,
counsel for the appellants.
       Shri Dilip Parihar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No. 625/2021, which is repeat application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant No.4-Chidda @ Sunil and appellant No. 5-

Bablu @ Gurudayal.

Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 stand convicted vide judgment and finding dated 30.01.2017 passed by the First Additional Session Judge, Multai, District Betul in S.T.No. 44/2015 for offence punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for life and 147, 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine and default stipulations.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, by taking this Court through the prosecution case, submits that the incident had taken place on

07.12.2014. Appellants have been convicted solely on the basis of testimony of Umrao (PW-5). By placing reliance on the statement of Umrao (PW-5), learned Senior counsel submits that he merely deposed that he was assaulted by the present appellants, because of which he became unconscious. On gaining consciousness, he found that dead body of deceased Sakharam was lying besides him. He is not an eye-witness to the incident of assault on deceased Sakharam. Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/8) is pressed into service to contend that name of appellant-Bablu does not find place in the said FIR. Considering the aforesaid, the evidence was totally insufficient to hold the appellants as guilty. The present appellants are in custody since their initial date of arrest. The final hearing of this appeal will take considerable time. Hence, it is prayed that the remaining jail sentence of the present appellants may be suspended.

The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State. He

submits that paragraph 50 of the impugned judgment makes it clear that presence of appellants at the place of incident cannot be doubted.

In the aforesaid factual backdrop, where star witness Umrao (PW-5) did not witness the assault on the deceased, without expressing any conclusive opinion on

the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the present appellants. Accordingly, I.A.No. 625/2021 is allowed and disposed of.

It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of appellant No.4-Chidda @ Sunil and appellant No.5-Bablu @ Gurudayal shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and they be released on bail. Appellants shall appear before the concerned trial Court firstly on 27.06.2022 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

List the case for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

          (SUJOY PAUL)                                            (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
             JUDGE                                                      JUDGE

      vidya
Digitally signed by
SREEVIDYA
Date: 2022.02.11
17:11:19 +05'30'