Sant Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3073 MP

                                       1




           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        Criminal Appeal No.696/2022
                      (Sant Kumar & anr. vs. State of M.P. & anr,)

Jabalpur, Dated 04.03.2022

         Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the appellant.

         Shri Satyapal Chadhar, Public Prosecutor for the respondent

State.

Heard on I.A. No.1848/2022 an application for taking additional

documents on record.

Considered. Allowed.

Documents filed vide I.A. No.1848/2022 be taken on record,

Heard on admission.

The appeal seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for hearing.

I.A. No.1072/2022 is taken up.

2. This is first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence of the appellants No.1 and 2 who stand convicted and sentenced as under-

     Convicted under                              Sentenced to
        Section

       326/34 of IPC       undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-
                           with default stipulation
         450 of IPC        undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-
                           with default stipulation
     324/34 of IPC (on     undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
        two counts)        each with default stipulation

3. The incident of this case is outcome of old animosity, between two extended families on account of some land. Both the parties beat

each other. Counter cases were registered and both the parties have been convicted.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants that they are actually the victims and not the offenders. The complainants of this case have been convicted in the counter case under Section 452 of IPC and have been awarded three years imprisonment. This supports the contention of the appellants/applicants that the complainants were assaulters and they barged into their house with deadly weapons and caused them injuries. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant-Atri. There is no evidence of connecting the sword with the crime, seized from the possession of Sant Kumar. The complainants have approached the police with a case that all three convicted accused persons were having sword at the time of the incident but neither medical report supports that allegation nor the three swords have been seized in this case. Falsity of the case of the complainants can be seen from the fact that entire family of the applicants had been roped but the trial Court has acquitted other five family members of the appellants/applicants who were charge sheeted by the police. The conviction of the appellants/applicants is based on statements of all family members of the complainant. Independent witnesses have not supported their case. Anil, Dinesh and Kanta sustained only simple injuries on non-vital parts of the body, which were caused by hard and blunt object. No such object has been recovered from the applicants.

5. According to the prosecution case, Sushil Kumar sustained the grievous injury/fracture in the neck of humorous with head and allegation to cause this injury is against Anuj. The appellants/applicants were on bail during the trial. The complainant have been granted suspension in the cross case. The appeal would take time to be heard finally. Therefore, it is prayed that the sentence of the applicants be suspended.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer referred to the statement of Anil PW-7 and paragraph 48 and 55 of the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of the application.

7. On due consideration of statement of Sushil Kumar-PW/5, Anil Kumar PW/7, Dinesh Rao PW/9 and all the other witnesses, also considering the evidence regarding injuries, the nature and gravity of the offence in the backdrop of the submission made by ld. counsel for the appellants/applicants, I deem it appropriate to suspend the sentence of the appellants/applicants, Accordingly, I.A. No.1072/2022, is allowed.

8. It is directed that on deposit of entire fine amount (if not already deposited) and on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) each with separate surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearances before the trial Court on 20.07.2022 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the trial Court, the appellant No.1-Sant Kumar and appellant No.2-Atri Bhatt be released on bail and the substantive sentence under appeal shall remain suspended till the final decision of the appeal.

9. In the event of non-appearance of the appellants/applicants, the trial Court shall be at liberty to take coercive action against them to secure their presence under intimation to this Court.

10. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(Virender Singh) Judge

Loretta Digitally signed by MRS. LORETTA RAJ Date: 2022.03.10 15:19:09 +05'30'