Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxminarayan @ Monu Bhargav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 April, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2619 of 2023
(LAXMINARAYAN @ MONU BHARGAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-04-2023
Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard on IA No.8458 of 2023, application for taking additional
documents on record.
After due consideration, IA No.8458 of 2023 is allowed.
Additional documents are taken on record.
Also heard on I.A.No.3961 of 2023, which is the first application
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389(1)
of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant No.1 Laxminarayan @ Monu
Bhargav and appellant No.2 Sonu Kumar Bhargav.
The appellants have filed this Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2023 passed by
Sessions Judge, Raisen, District Raisen (M.P.) in Sessions Trial
No.177/2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted under
Sections 304 Part-II and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for seven years and R.I. for six months (each) with a direction that
substantive jail sentence shall run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned trial judge
has erred in holding the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections
304-II and 323 of the IPC. There was no pre-planning or pre-meditation
on the part of the appellants to cause death of the deceased. Counter
case was also registered against the complainant of this case Rohit
Kushwaha for causing injury to appellants. In that regard, learned
counsel for the appellants drew the attention of this Court towards the
statement of Dr. A.K. Mathur (PW-14). There is no exterior injury on the
body of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants are in custody since the date of their arrest and this appeal
is of the year 2023, and there is no possibility of early hearing of this
appeal in near future. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if
the remaining jail sentence is not suspended then this appeal will
become infructuous, hence, prays for suspension of remaining jail
sentence of appellants.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and submits that appellants were aggressor and in counter case
offence was only proved under Section 323 of the IPC and only fine was
imposed in that case. Hence, the appellants are not entitled for grant of
suspension of remaining jail sentence. Trial court has passed the
judgment after proper appreciation of evidence that came on record and
has rightly held the appellants guilty.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record. Looking at the facts and circumstance of the case
and considering the statement of Rohit Kushwaha (PW-1), Phool Bai
(PW-2), Priya Kushwaha (PW-3), Dr. Sujeet Kumar (PW-13) and
autopsy reports Ex.P-13 and 14, it is apt to mention that the expression
of any final opinion at this stage with regards to merits of the case is not
desirable because it may prejudice the case of the other party. Suffice it
to say, in the considered opinion of this court, it is not the fit case for
suspension of remaining jail sentence of appellants.
Accordingly, IA No. 3961 of 2023 is hereby dismissed.
Appellants may renew the prayer for suspension of remaining jail
sentence after completion of the half of the actual jail sentence.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
DPS
DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH
2023.04.28 18:57:22 +05'30'
