Arvind Shivhare vs State Of Mp
2022 Latest Caselaw 494 MP

                              1




          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  Criminal Appeal No.7878-2021
       (Arvind Shivhare & others vs State of Madhya Pradesh)

Jabalpur, Dated 11/01/2022.

      Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, counsel for the appellants.
      Shri Anoop Sonkar, Panel Lawyer for the State.
      Heard on admission.
      Admit.
      Record of the Court below is available.
1.

Heard on I.A. No.22758/2021, which is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of the appellants.

2. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under-

     Convicted under                     Sentenced to
        Section
      329 of IPC         Undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine
                          of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment
                              of fine, to suffer R.I. for 1 month.

3. Prosecution story, in short, is that complainant Suresh Yadav was going back home on his tractor bearing registration No.MP- 16AM-0006 from Nowgaon; complainant was driving the tractor, while victims Hargovind Yadav, Munna Yadav, Gulab Singh were sitting in the trolley. When complainant slow downed his tractor at a speed breaker near Manpura stand, appellants Arvind Shivare and Rajendra @ Rajan Rajput alongwith accused Mukesh Rajput in drunken condition intercepted the tractor, and while abusing demanded Rs.1000/- for chicken and liquor party. On refusal, they threatened him for life, caught him by neck and shook him strongly by holding his collar, as a result he lost control and the

tractor trolley turned turtle and the persons sitting in it sustained injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the story of the prosecution is inherently improbable. According to the prosecution case itself, when the money was allegedly demanded by the applicants the tractor was standing or was not running. In such a situation, it was not possible that the tractor turned turtle. Further learned counsel referred to the statement of Gulab Singh Yadav, who has stated that the applicants scuffled with him but demanded nothing. He also referred to para 4 of complainant Suresh (P.W-2) where he has stated that he has a driving licence, but did not produce the same before the police during the investigation. No allegation of causing direct injury is levelled against the applicants. The other submission of learned counsel for the applicants are that the applicants were on bail during trial, the incident had taken place 10 years back, since then the appellants are facing trial, the appeal would take time for final disposal, therefore, the sentence of appellants be suspended.

5. Learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned judgment. He referred to the statement of complainant Suresh Yadav (P.W-2), injured Gulab Singh Yadav (P.W-3) and Hargovind Yadav (P.W-8) and eyewitness Munnalal (P.W-6), who have deposed before the Police regarding the incident and in examination before the Court supported the incident. He further referred to para 17 of the impugned judgment and stated that grievous injury has been caused to the victims. Since the complainant and all the three victims have supported the prosecution case very well, therefore, no case for suspension of sentence is made out. He also referred to para 4 of the impugned judgment, wherein he has stated that

complainant was having driving licence, but did not produce the same, which shows that the accident might have been caused due to negligence of the complainant himself.

6. The prosecution story is that on the date of incident when complainant Suresh Yadav was coming back home by his tractor, complainant was driving the tractor while injured Gulab Singh, Hargovind Yadav and Munnalal Yadav were sitting in the trolley. On their way near Malpura stand when Suresh slow downed the tractor near a speed breaker, accused Mukesh Arvind and Rajesh climbed on the tractor, demanded Rs.1000/- for having a party of chicken and liquor. On his denial, he shook him from his neck, complainant lost control over the tractor and fell down, the accused persons also fell down resulting in injuries to the persons sitting on the tractor including the fracture of tibia bone of Gulab Singh.

7. Before the trial Court complainant Suresh Yadav and three victims namely Hargovind Yadav and Gulab Singh and Munnalal have supported the incident.

8. I have gone through the statement recorded by the trial Court and other evidence available on record and find it not a fit case to grant suspension of sentence. Therefore, I.A. No.22758/2021 is rejected.

(Virender Singh) Judge rv Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 2022.01.14 15:40:07 +05'30'