Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naresh Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2204 of 2023
(NARESH RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-08-2023
Shri Suresh Agarwal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Awasthi - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.12374 of 2023, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of sole
appellant - Naresh Rawat.
Appellant stood convicted under Sections 389, 364-A of IPC r/w Section
11/13 of MPDVPK Act and under Sections 347, 392 IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for ten years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, imprisonment for life
(rigorous) with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, RI for three years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-
and RI for seven years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations vide
judgment o f conviction and order of sentence dated 10/01/2023 passed by
Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in SC DOCT
No.32/2021.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned judgment is
vitiated for the reason that charge against the appellant under Section 364-A of
IPC was added on the date of judgment i.e.10/01/2023 without according
opportunity of hearing to him. Learned counsel for the appellant further assailed
the impugned judgment on the ground that testimony of Rajbahadur Singh
Chauhan (P.W.1) who is complainant in the matter remained unchallenged
because right of cross-examination was closed on very first day of evidence
itself without according reasonable opportunity. The appellant could not
challenge the order regarding closure of right of cross-examination as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/2/2023
7:52:26 PM
Rajbahadur Singh Chauhan (P.W.1) had died. Therefore, the learned Trial
Court has committed error in convicting the appellant on the basis of
unchallenged testimony of Rajbahadur Singh Chauhan (P.W.1). Learned
counsel for the appellant also submits that appellant has falsely been implicated
in the matter and the first information report was lodged after delay of 11 days
on a concocted story. No plausible explanation is available for delay in
reporting the incident. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it
was alleged that a ring, chain made of gold and Rs.1,50,000/- were looted from
complainant Rajbahadur Singh Chauhan (P.W.1). No test identification parade
was conducted during investigation. The seized pieces of gold chain were not
produced and identified before the Court by complainant Rajbahadur Singh
Chauhan (P.W.1).
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even if the
testimony of complainant Rajbahadur Singh Chauhan (P.W.1) is taken into
consideration, without cross examination thereof, Rajbahadur Singh Chauhan
(P.W.1) has stated that co-accused Simran @ Gathan took him to the place of
incident. After she left the spot, three unknown persons snatched gold chain,
gold ring and Rs. 1,50,000/- and fled away. Thus, appellant was not present at
the place of incident when gold ring, gold chain and Rs. 1,50,000/- were
forcefully snatched from complainant. The learned Trial court has committed an
error in convicting the appellant for extortion and robbery and also abduction
for ransom. The call details of communication between the co-accused and
complainant Rajbahadur Singh have also not been proved. Appellant has been
in jail for about two years. It is lastly submitted that co-accused Smt. Simran @
Gathan has already been extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and
Signature Not Verified
grant of bail vide order dated 03.07.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2205 of 2023.
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/2/2023
7:52:26 PM
On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant.
P e r contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on the ground that
Rajbahadur Singh Chauhan (P.W.1) has specifically stated about direct
involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence. He further submits that
despite providing opportunity of cross-examination, appellant/accused did not
c ro s s examine the complainant, therefore, right of cross-examination was
closed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has convicted and
sentenced the appellant on proper appreciation of evidence, therefore, no case
is made out for suspension of sentence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, regard being had to the obtaining facts and circumstances coupled with
the fact that the appellant has undergone incarceration for about two years, co-
accused Smt. Simran @ Gathan has already been extended the benefit of
suspension of sentence and grant of bail vide order dated 03.07.2023 in
Criminal Appeal No.2205 of 2023 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of
the appeal, this Court is of the view that appellant is entitled to the benefit of
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, IA No.12374 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of the
present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to verification of the
factum of depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only) with one
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/2/2023
7:52:26 PM
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He is
directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 29.08.2023 and
thereafter, on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/2/2023
7:52:26 PM
