Pratap Barkade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 576 MP

                                   1
                                                                 CRA-10669-2019




           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            CRA-10669-2019
               (Pratap Barkade vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)

Jabalpur, Dated 12.01.2022

        Heard through Video Conferencing.
        Shri V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
        Shri   Nagendra    Singh       Solanki,   Panel   Lawyer    for    the
respondent/State.

I.A. No.19633/2021 is taken up.

This is the first application under Section 389(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence of the sole appellant who stands convicted and has been awarded punishment as under :

     Convicted under                         Sentenced to
         Section
     304 Part I of IPC    undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for 1 year.

201 of IPC undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for 3 months Both the sentences shall run concurrently

2. The suspension is pressed on the ground that both the appellant and the deceased were living together as husband & wife. They were habitual drunkards and the incident had taken place all of a sudden without any premeditation, preparation and intention. Under the impact of intoxication, some disputes arose between them on some petty domestic issues which turn sore. Nothing had happened at the time of incident except some verbal altercation between them. Further, there is delay in lodging the report.

3. The ld. counsel for the appellant referred to para 21 and 29 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial Court has observed that there was no intention of the appellant to cause death of his wife. Dr. Umesh Dahate (PW16) admitted that the head injury of the deceased may be sustained by fall on some hard surface. The appellant is in

CRA-10669-2019

custody since 01.04.2017. The appeal would take time to be heard finally. Therefore, his sentence may be suspended.

4. The prosecution has opposed the prayer.

5. This is not in dispute that the deceased was living with the appellant as his wife. Dr. Umesh Dahate (PW16) stated that her death was homicidal in nature. Sarita (PW2), daughter of the appellant, herself has clearly depicted that it was her father who gave a blow on the head of the deceased which Dr. Umesh Dahate observed in the post- mortem and opined that this injury was sufficient to cause her death. Statement of the witness is well supported by the ocular evidence as well as documents prepared during investigation. The trial Court itself has observed that the cause and circumstances under which the offence has been committed and therefore, has convicted and sentence the appellant as indicated hereinabove.

6. On due consideration of the nature of allegation found proved against the appellant and the cogent evidence available on record, no case for suspension of sentence on any of the grounds raised by the ld. counsel for the appellant is made out.

7. Consequently, I.A. No.19633/2021 stands rejected.

8. Being an admitted appeal, let it be listed for final hearing in due course.

(Virender Singh) JUDGE vinod Digitally signed by VINOD VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.01.12 16:29:17 +05'30'