Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhailu Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2924 of 2015
(CHHAILU KOL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-04-2023
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A No. 22489 of 2022, an application under Section 389(1)
of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants arising
out of judgment dated 05.08.2015 delivered in S.T. No. 120/2013, by IInd
Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, District - Shahdol (M.P.).
The appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section
34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-
, with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that no previous
application has been decided on merits.
A s per prosecution story, on 26.03.2013 at around 9:00 pm, the
appellants who are maternal uncle of Mandhari Kol (deceased) had a quarrel
with him. Appellant No.1-Chhailu Kol brought kerosene oil 'dabba' from his
house and poured the same on the deceased and appellant No.2- Pasau Kol set
him ablaze.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the FIR (Ex.P/22) was
registered on 27.03.2013 by the complainant/deceased Mandhari Kol. The FIR
shows that Chhailu Kol brought kerosene oil, poured it on him and the other
appellant set him ablaze, whereas the story narrated in dying declaration
(Ex.P/17) recorded by the Executive Magistrate is totally different. As per this
dying declaration (Ex.P/17), the deceased poured kerosene out of anger on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 01-Apr-23
5:24:27 PM
himself and then Pasau Kol set him ablaze. The prosecution witnesses/eye
witnesses namely Munni Bai (PW-1), Rajjan Bai (PW-2) and father of deceased
(PW-6) did not support the prosecution story.
Para-61 of the impugned judgment shows that appellant No.2 - Pasau
Kol remained in custody from 28.03.2013 to 04.08.2015 and thereafter from the
date of judgement whereas appellant No.1- Chhailu Kol remained in custody
between 18.3.2013 to 18.07.2013 and thereafter from the date of judgment. One
appellant has completed more than 10 years actual sentence whereas other fall
short by few months. Final hearing of appeal is not possible in near future.
Considering the aforesaid, the remaining jail sentence of these appellants may be
suspended.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government counsel opposed the prayer
on the basis of objection.
We have heard the the parties.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, period of custody coupled
with the facts that final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to
suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellants. Accordingly, I.A No. 22489
of 2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.1-Chhailu Kol and appellant
No.2- Pasau Kol are hereby suspended and it is directed that on furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)
each along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court, appellants be released on bail with a further direction to remain
Signature Not Verified
present before the Trial Court, Shahdol on 9th May, 2023 and on such other
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 01-Apr-23
5:24:27 PM
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) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
sm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 01-Apr-23
5:24:27 PM
