Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 5523 of 2021
(VISHAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 14-02-2022
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.28728/2021, an application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant-Vishal.
Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment dated
09/08/2021 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, District Mandleshwar, in
S.T. No.14/2018, wherein he has been convicted for offence under Section 302/34
of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine and usual default
stipulation.
As per prosecution story in short, on 27/02/2018 near about 22.50 to 23.50
in Dushera maidan, Badwaha, Pappu @ Shriram was waiving off fire sticks for
which Sourabh @ Barik has objected but when Pappu did not stop his act,
Sourabh went to his house and came back with a knife, assaulted stab injury on
Pappu's stomach. Pappu was taken to Civil Hospital Badwaha, wherein FIR was
lodged against Sourabh under Section 307, 294 of IPC, 1860. The statement of
the deceased was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C (not exhibited). After
registration of FIR, the statement of Kapish @ Vikki (P.W.1) and Deepak (P.W.2)
were recorded in which they have narrated the incident as stated in FIR. Later on
Tehsildar (P.W.7) recorded a dying declaration on 04/03/2018 in which for the first
time the deceased has disclosed that it is the accused persons Vishal and Bablu
who caught hold of him and thereafter Sourabh inflicted injury on his stomach.
After evaluating the evidence learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted all
the three accused persons under Section 302/34 of IPC, 1860.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
convicted only on the basis of dying declaration which is not corroborated by eye
witnesses. Eye witness in their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
did not named the present appellant and they have improvised their version in the
Date: 2022.02.15
11:04:35 IST
Court on the basis of dying declaration. Even otherwise, the only allegation against
the appellant is that he caught hold of the deceased and fatal injury was caused by
Sourabh. The appellant was on bail during the trial and has not misused the liberty
so granted to him. The appeal is of the year 2018 and it will take sufficient long
time for its conclusion. Hence, prays for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application and prayed for its
rejection.
We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the
record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments
advanced by the counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merit of the
case, the application is allowed
Accordingly, I.A. No.28728/2021 is allowed and it is directed that on
furnishing personal bond by appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution
of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall
remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before
the Registry of this Court on 22.09.2022 and on all such subsequent dates, which
are fixed in this regard by the concerned trial Court.
This is an admitted appeal.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE JUDGE
sumathi
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Date: 2022.02.15
11:04:35 IST
