Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munnalal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1214 of 2022
(MUNNALAL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 14-10-2022
Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant No.1.
Shri S. S. Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
IA No. 14324/2022, application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail of appellant No.1 Munnalal is taken up.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default
stipulation.
In this repeat application learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail of appellant No.1 mainly on the ground
of parity. It is further submitted that this Court was kind enough in suspending
the sentence of appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 on 25.3.2022. The name of present
appellant No.1 finds place in the dying declaration (Ex.P/6) and role attributed
on the present appellant is similar to the role of co-accused persons namely
Dhaniram and Premnarayan. Since the said accused persons have been given
benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail, for the same reasons the
appellant No.1 may be given similar benefit. Moreso, in para-61 of the
impugned judgment the Court below clearly held that only first dying declaration
is trustworthy, second and third are not. Since the name of present appellant
No.1 and co-accused persons Dhaniram and Premnarayan find place in the first
dying declaration and this court has granted benefit of suspension of sentence
to the aforesaid two co-accused persons, the present appellant No.1 may be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/14/2022
5:15:45 PM
given same benefit.
T h e prayer is opposed by learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State on the strength of objection.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and
the objection.
This Court on 25.3.2022 passed a detailed order, relevant portion of the
order reads as under :-
"The remaining appellants have been convicted under
Section 302/34 of IPC to undergo RI for Life and fine
of Rs.5000/- each with default stipulation.
Taking this Court to the prosecution story, learned
Senior Counsel submits that 10 persons allegedly set
the deceased ablaze. The Court below acquitted six
persons and held the present appellants as guilty. In
para 26 of the judgment, two circumstances are
mentioned by the Trial Court on the strength of which,
the case of prosecution was tested. In para 40, the
first circumstance determined by the Court in para 26
o f the judgment was not found to be proved. It was
clearly held that the prosecution miserably failed to
establish that on the date of incident accused persons
have witnessed the deceased Dhansingh when he was
set ablaze. The prosecution also failed to prove that
the appellants fled away from the place of incident.
T h e second circumstance, submits learned Senior
Counsel is based on three dying declaration. The first
dying declaration is Exhibit P/6 whereas, other two
are Exhibit P/22 and P/29. The gist of these dying
declarations are reproduced by the Court below in the
impugned judgment. By placing reliance on the
relevant paragraphs of the judgment namely, para 44,
46 and 49, learned Senior Counsel submits that there
are variations in the names taken by the deceased.
The dying declaration can become sole reason for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/14/2022
5:15:45 PM
conviction provided it inspires confidence and suffers
from no contradiction/ doubt. The dying
declaration do not inspire confidence. It is submitted
that in second dying declaration names of Santosh
Rani was specifically taken by the deceased but she
was acquitted by the Court below. Similarly, in third
dying declaration P/29, names of Tukaram, Ashok and
Ramesh were taken but they were also acquitted by
the Court below. There is no justification in holding
the appellants as guilty.
Shri A. S. Baghel, learned Deputy Govt. Adv. for
respondent -state opposes the prayer.
We have heard the parties and perused the objection
in record. In view of variations in the dying
declaration and acquittal of certain persons whose
names finds placed in second and third dying
declaration, without expressing any conclusive
opinion on the merits of the case, we deep it
appropriate to suspend the remaining jail sentence of
appellants No.2, 3 and 4 Champabai, Dhaniram and
Premnarayan @ Prem.
Subject to depositing the fine amount, (if not already
deposited), the execution of jail sentence of appellant
no. 2, 3 and 4 is hereby suspended and it is directed
that the appellant no.2 namely Champabai and
appellant no. 3, Dhaniram and appellant No.4
Premnarayan @ Prem be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees thirty thousand only) each with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court with a further direction to appear before
t h e trial Court, Khurai, District Sagar on 29th of
August 2022 and also on such other dates, as may be
fixed by the trial.
Accordingly aforesaid IA is allowed so far as it
relates to appellants No.2, 3 and 4 Champabai,
Dhaniram and Premnarayan @ Prem respectively."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/14/2022
5:15:45 PM
Prima facie the case of present appellant No.1 appears to be similar qua
co-accused Dhaniram and Premnarayan, therefore, without expressing any
conclusive opinion on merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.1.
Subject to depositing the fine amount, (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.
Accordingly, aforesaid IA is allowed. The execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.1 is hereby suspended and it is directed that appellant No.1
Munnalal be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to
appear before the trial court, Khurai, Sagar on 19.12.2022 and also on such
other dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard during the
pendency of this appeal.
C c today.
(SUJOY PAUL) (DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
ahd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/14/2022
5:15:45 PM
