Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sourabh @ Virendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6426 of 2022
(SOURABH @ VIRENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 10-11-2022
Shri Shashank Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
I.A. 14056/2022, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant- Sourabh @ Virendra arising out of judgment dated 27.05.2022
delivered in S.C. No. S.T. No.299 of 2019 by Special Judge, II Additional
Sessions Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur is taken up.
T h e appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 304 part I of IPC and sentence to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of
Rs.5000/-, under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 323 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the day of holi festival
on 21.03.2019, as per prosecution story at around 2.00 p.m the appellant and
other co-accused persons assaulted the deceased Bali by means of lathi. Bali
died while taking him to the hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that Roopa Lodhi (PW/1), Ghasita Bai (PW/2), Puniya Bai (PW3), Vinay
(PW4), Bihari Patel (PW5), Rohit Patel (PW11) are the eye witnesses. All these
Signature Not Verified
SAN witnessed in their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. deposed
Digitally signed by DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2022.11.11 18:09:54 IST
that appellant had caused head injury on deceased Bali by means of a lathi.
however, the said eyewitnesses did not support their statement in the Court and
the complainant Bihari Patel (PW/5) specifically deposed during cross-
examination that he is unable to state how police in statement under Section 161
recorded that appellant caused head injury on Bali. The weapon (lathi) allegedly
recovered from the appellant was sent for query report but similar weapon
recovered from the co-accused persons were not sent for query report. The
other co-accused persons were imposed sentence of one year for allegedly
committing offence under Section 323 of IPC whereas appellant for similar act
has been sentenced to undergo 10 years under Section 304 part-I. The appellant
is in custody from the date of incident. Final hearing of this appeal is not
possible in near future. There was no per-mediation and a small quarrel had
taken an ugly shape. The final hearing of this appeal will take time, hence
remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended.
Prayer is opposed by Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Govt. Advocate on
the basis of objection.
We have heard the parties and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, without expressing any
conclusive opinion on merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No. 14056 of 2022
is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant- Sourabh @ Virendra is hereby
suspended and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail on her
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
Digitally signed by DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
of the trial court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court
Date: 2022.11.11 18:09:54 IST
Sihora, Jabalpur on 01.03.2023 and also on such other dates as may be
fixed by the trial court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
DevS
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2022.11.11 18:09:54 IST
