Radheshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 10089 MP

                                   1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT INDORE
                            CRA No. 188 of 2016
                   (RADHESHYAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 21-07-2022
      Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.9197/2022, a second repeat application filed under section 389(1) Cr.P.C seeking suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant Radheshyam.

As per prosecution story on 28.03.2013 a dead body of unknown person was found in an injured condition and later on he was identified as Ayub. Police registered a case and during investigation appellant Radheshyam and co- accused Dilip and Kamal were arrested on the basis of last seen them with the deceased and they were put to trial. The investigation revealed that there was some previous enmity between all the four and because of which they took the deceased and assaulted him. The present appellant has fired a gun shot because of which he died. After the arrest of the appellant a country made pistol was recovered from his possession. The ballistic report has confirmed that the said

pistol was used for the commission of murder.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that out of 3 accused, Kamal has been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2015 and thereafter Dilip has been acquitted vide judgment dated 15.11.2017. It is a case of blind murder and the appellant has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The trial Court has disbelieved all the witnesses and only on the basis of the FSL report and ballistic report the appellant has been convicted. The recovery of pistol is also doubtful as two witnesses of the

seizure memo are close relatives as admitted by the investigating officer. The prosecution has also failed to prove the motive behind the murder. The appellant is in jail since last nine years. This appeal is of the year 2016 and there is no likelihood of conclusion of this appeal in near future.

Learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties coupled with the facts that the appellant has already undergone 9 years of jail sentence and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of this appeal, the application is allowed. It is directed that the jail

sentence passed against the appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail upon his depositing the fine amount (if already not deposited) and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 16.01.2023 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.

      (VIVEK RUSIA)                             (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
         JUDGE                                           JUDGE

hk/
          Digitally signed by HARI
          KUMAR C G NAIR
          Date: 2022.07.21 18:32:42
          +05'30'