Taraj @ Rajsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 704 MP

                                   1                              CRA-6861-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 CRA No. 6861 of 2021
           (TARAJ @ RAJSINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Jabalpur, Dated : 14-01-2022
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Ms. Indu Pande, Advocate for the appellants.
      Shri S.K. Malvi, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the Court below has been received.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is arguable, therefore, admitted for hearing.

Written objection has been filed by the State.

Also heard o n I.A. No.20395/2021 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant No.2 Manmod.

T h e appellant No.2 has been convicted vide judgment dated 11.08.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Gadarwara, District-Narsinghpur (M.P.) in S.T. No.71/2015 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 (two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment (two counts) with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that as per prosecution story, the appellants along with other co-accused persons assaulted two persons namely Gajendra and Babu. Gajendra died on the same day, whereas Babu was alive for about two months. The prosecution did not record dying declaration/statement of Babu an important witness. By taking this Court to the statement of Dr. Rakesh Bohre (PW-15), it is submitted that Gajendra did not receive any injury on the vital part of his body. FSL report shows that the Lathi allegedly recovered from the appellants and marked as Article H did not have any blood stained at all. The other weapons used by co-accused persons had blood stained as per FSL report, but most of them were acquitted by the Court below. Shankar (PW-3) deliberately deposed against the appellant because he had previous enmity with the present appellant, 2 CRA-6861-2021 which is evident from para 21 of this statement.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that the appellant No.2 is in jail for about eight years. At the time of incident, he was 66 years old and now he is aged about 75 years. The final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future in this Pandemic Era, therefore the remaining jail sentence of appellant No.2 may be suspended and he may be granted bail.

T he prayer is opposed by Shri Malvi, learned Panel Lawyer on the strength of written objection and statement of Chhote Veer (PW-4).

We have heard the parties at length and perused the relevant statement/record.

Considering the aforesaid fact coupled with the custody period of the appellant No.2 and his age and the arguments advanced by the parties, the final hearing of this appeal will take time in the ongoing Pandemic Era Covid- 19, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.2 Manmod.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 20395/2021 i s allowed. Execution of jail sentence of appellant No.2 Manmod is hereby suspended and it is ordered that he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the 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, District Narsinghpur on 22.06.2022 and such further dates as may be fixed in this regard.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.

                                        (SUJOY PAUL)                                    (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                           JUDGE                                                JUDGE

                                   pn




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by PANKAJ NAGLE
Date: 2022.01.14 17:19:14 IST