Bharu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7287 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE CRA No. 4586 of 2017 (BHARU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 13-05-2022 Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for State. Heard on I.A.No.4183/2022, an application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant who has been convicted under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, with default stipulation vide judgment dated 23.8.2017 passed by Sessions Judge / Special

Judge, Jhabua, district Jhabua.

As per prosecution story, on 13.8.2014, 4 - 5 persons aged about 22 to 30 years entered into the house of the Pradeep Kumar Rathore and committed loot of gold ornaments valued Rs.1,20,000/- while committing the loot they assaulted the family members of the complainant. The report was lodged and appellant Bharu was formally arrested vide Exhibit P/9 and on his disclosure jewelleries were recovered valued Rs.7500/- and Rs.5000/-. On disclosure of other accused person the appellant was arrested. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet under Section 395, read with

Section 396 of IPC. The appellant denied the charges and pleaded for trial. The prosecution examined the witnesses and after evaluating the evidence came on record appellant has been convicted under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to para 10 and Signature Not Verified SAN 14 of the impugned judgment, which reveals that appellant has not been Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Date: 2022.05.14 19:11:00 IST identified by the complainant and the witnesses of seizure memo have also not

been examined. No documentary evidence has been produced to establish the ownership of the looted articles. Therefore, in such circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction is bad in law and appellant is entitled for grant of suspension of jail sentence.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for suspension of jail sentence and prays for its rejection.

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A.No.4183/2022 is allowed and it is directed that upon appellant's depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) and on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with

one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the appeal and he shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this court on 13.9.2022 and all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by the Office.

List for final hearing in due course along with CRA.No.4159/2017. C.c. as per rules.

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

                                       SS/-




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.05.14 19:11:00 IST