Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banwarilal Bind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 881 of 2015
(BANWARILAL BIND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 31-03-2022
Shri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ritwik Parashar, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Heard on I A. No.12097/2016, which is first application u/S.389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant-
Banwarilal Bind, is taken up and considered along with reply of the State.
T his criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed in
Session Trial No.139/2012 by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, District-Rewa
(M.P.), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 394, 201
and 435 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment, R.I. for 10 years,
R.I for 3 years and R.I. for 3 years, respectively with fine of Rs.500/- in each
offences with default stipulations.
The facts reveal that deceased-Suresh Dubey was driver of the truck bearing
registration No.MP-HH-1052 and the present appellant was cleaner of the said
truck.
According to the prosecution case, on 31.01.2012, the brother of the owner
of said truck instructed the driver i.e. deceased-Suresh Dubey to load crushed
stone (gitti) from Maiher and gave a sum of Rs.6,000/-. Then deceased along with
present appellant proceeded for Maihar at about 10:00 p.m. However, after that it
was found that the mobile phone of the driver was switched off. Later on, the
owner received an information that his truck was found within the teritory of Police
Station-Raipur Karchuliyan and was fully burnt. When the owner and brother of
the owner of truck came to the spot and found that the said truck was fully burnt
and in the cabin of truck a fully burnt skeleton was also found. Thereafter, upon
marg registration, a case was registered against the present appellant.
On the basis of circumstantial evidence as well as seizure of Rs.14,000/-
from the possession of present appellant, he was tried and ultimately convicted as
aforesaid.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that there is no eye witness available
in the entire case and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, he has been
implicated in the case. Merely, seizure memo pertaining to recovery of Rs.14,000/-
which was also not proved by the memorandum witnesses was not sufficient to
implicate the present appellant. Therefore, prayed that in the absence of any eye
witness, the order of sentence and judgment of conviction is unsustainable.
Apparently, the case is based on circumstantial evidence inasmuch as no eye
witness is the case. Even 'jug' which was seized from the truck was sent for FSL
report which stated that the same contained neither diesel nor petrol or even
kerosene. The statement of Ashok Sharma (PW-1) also revealed that looking to the
condition of the skeleton, no opinion could have been given as regards injuries on
vital part of the body.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for its
rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material
available on record, no case for suspension of sentence is made out.
We have heard learned counsel for parties.
Therefore, without entering into the merits of the matter, we deem it proper
to suspend the sentence and direct release of the appellant on bail. Hence, IA.
No.12097/2016 is allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that jail sentence of appellant-Banwarilal Bind
will remain under suspension subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already
deposited, and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/-each, to the satisfaction of
concerned available Magistrate for his appearance before concerned available
Magistrate on 13.05.2022 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this regard
which shall be of frequency not less than once a year.
I n case, appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the concerned
available Magistrate, then concerned available Magistrate shall be free to issue and
execute warrant of arrest for securing his presence without first referring the matter
to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.
Learned concerned available Magistrate and the prosecution are directed to
ensure following of Covid-19 precautionary protocol prescribed from time to time
by the Supreme Court, the Central Govt. as well as the State Govt. during release,
travel and residence of the appellant during period of suspension of sentence as a
consequence of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(SHEEL NAGU) (MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE JUDGE
sp
SAVITRI PATEL
2022.04.01 17:54:48
+05'30'
