Mahnig vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5437 MP

                                                                                1
                                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                         AT INDORE
                                                                         CRA No. 3892 of 2023
                                                                  (MAHNIG Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            Dated : 01-04-2023
                                                   Shri Abhay Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                                   Shri Viraj Godha, learned PL for respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

The appeal is admitted for final hearing. Also heard on IA No.3828/2023 which is first application u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence of appellant Mahnig.

The appellant has been convicted u/Ss.148, 436/149 and 452/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.1000/-, seven years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and five years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

Counsel for the appellant submits that identically placed co-accused persons/appellants in the connected appeal have already been granted benefit of suspension of jail sentence. They have relied on an order dated 16.02.2023 passed in CRA No.658/2023.

Counsel for appellant submits that as per the prosecution case, one

Partha (PW.1) lodged a report on 23.11.2007 to the effect that a quarrel had taken place on 22.11.2007 between 'Dama Family' and 'Dindor Family' of his village and due to that animosity, about 67 persons armed with deadly weapons and inflammable goods, kerosene oil, grass bundle etc. ablazed fire on the huts. About 34 dwelling houses have been burnt. Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Counsel for appellant submits that the matter was compromised even Date: 2023.04.01 17:24:05 IST

during trial. He referred to para three of the impugned judgment to state that

except one complainant Hurtan, all the complainants have compromised the matter. The damage caused to the complainants have been compensated. It is further submitted that the appellant has been convicted with the aid of Sec.149 of IPC and omnibus allegations have been made. In all 59 persons have been convicted. Incident is said to have taken place in the year 2007 and the appellant was on bail during trial. He did not misuse the liberty.

Counsel for State opposed the prayer.

Considering the aforesaid submissions, the IA No.3828/2023 is allowed. The substantive jail sentence of the appellant Mahnig is suspended upon depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing bail bond

of Rs.50,000/- with one separate surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for appearance before the Registry of this Court on 03.08.2023 and on the subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

CC as per rules.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

soumya

Signature Not Verified VerifiedDigitally Digitally signed by SAN SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Date: 2023.04.01 17:24:05 IST