Yogendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4597 MP

                                                                         1
                                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                          AT JABALPUR
                                                            CRA No. 6590 of 2021
                                             (YOGENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                         Dated : 31-03-2022
                                  Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the appellants.

                                  Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.5282/2022, application u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellants Yogendra Singh, Krishnakant, Mohan Pateria and Sunil Pathak.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25/10/2021 passed by

learned VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in S.T. No.102/2015 whereby learned Session Judge found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

As per prosecution case, on 9/1/2015 at around 9.30 p.m., appellants Yogendra Singh, Krishnakant, Mohan Pateria and Sunil Pathak came to complainant Heera Singh's house and fired at him and his wife Pana Bai Kushwaha with country made pistol with intent to kill them. Luckily, they were escaped and gun shots were stuck in the gate and wall of the house.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence properly, wrongly found appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences. He further submitted that regarding incident, there are many contradiction and omission in the statements of complainant Heera Singh (PW1), his wife Pana Bai (PW2) and Udaybhan Rajput (PW3). Their statements do not corroborate by the statement of independent witness of the incident i.e. Chhiddi Kushwaha (PW4). He further submitted that regarding seizure of country made pistol from the possession of appellant no.1 Yogendra Singh and appellant no.2 Krishnakant, also prosecution story is doubtful. Learned trial Court acquitted the appellant no.1 Yogendra Singh and appellant no.2 Krishnakant from the charge under Section 25(1)(b)(a) read with Section 34 of the IPC and held that it is not proved that police seized country made pistol from the possession of the appellant no.1 and Signature Not Verified SAN 2 namely Yogendra and Krishnakant which also shows that the police falsely implicated the appellants in the crime. The appellants have no criminal past and they have been in custody Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2022.03.31 16:27:57 IST

since the date of judgment i.e. 25/10/2021. Hence prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellants on bail since the hearing of this appeal will take time.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the prosecution evidence offence under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC is clearly proved against

the appellants. So, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in finding the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application for suspension of sentence.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants and the fact that in the incident complainant and his wife did not sustain any gun shot injury, the appellants are in custody since 25/10/2021 and according to listing policy the hearing of this appeal will take time, the application is allowed and it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and they be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/8/2022 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.

Since the appeal has already been admitted for hearing, list the case for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

m/-

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2022.03.31 16:27:57 IST