Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roop Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2180 of 2022
(ROOP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 16-03-2022
Shri Ahadulla Usmani, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Sandeep Kumar Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Trial Court record is received.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also Heard on I.A.No.3866/2022, an application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
The appellants No. 2 and 3 Chedilal and Jungle Singh have been convicted
under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of
Rs. 10,000/-, with default stipulations, whereas appellant No.1-Roop Singh has
been convicted under Section 304(1) of IPC, Section 201 of IPC, Sections 25(1)
(1-B)(a) of Arms Act,1959 and Section 27(i) of Arms Act, 1959 and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, R.I. for 4 years, R.I. for 1 year and R.I.
for 3 years respectively alongwith fine. Default stipulations have also been imposed
by the trial Court. As per provision of Section 201 of IPC where offence is
punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to
ten years, accused shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years and fine.
Learned trial Court has directed to undergo R.I. for 4 years to both the
appellants No. 2 and 3 Chedilal and Jungle Singh whereas maximum statutory
punishment is of three years.
Learned counsel for the appellants No. 2 and 3 submitted that appellants
No. 2 and 3 have been convicted and sentenced without properly appreciating the
evidence on record. The only allegation against the appellants No. 2 and 3 are that
they extended their support to conceal the dead body of deceased Manak Lal. He
further submitted that the final hearing of this appeal will take considerable time,
Signature Not Verified
therefore, the remaining jail sentence of appellants No. 2 and 3 may be suspended.
SAN
The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2022.03.16 19:38:05 IST
On perusal of para 52 of the impugned judgment, it reveals that appellants
No. 2 and 3 have been convicted for the commission of offence under Section 201
of IPC and have been sentenced as mentioned herein above.
I have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence of prosecution
witnesses. However without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I
deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellants No. 2 and
3 because final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future.
Accordingly, aforesaid I.A.No.3866/2022 is allowed. The execution of jail
sentence of appellants No. 2 and 3-Chedilal and Jungle Singh subject to
depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited, is hereby suspended and it
is directed that the appellants No. 2 and 3 be released on bail on their furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each
with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court
with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on
23.08.2022 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this
regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
L.R.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2022.03.16 19:38:05 IST
