Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhay Pratap Singh @ Pintu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1713 of 2022
(ABHAY PRATAP SINGH @ PINTU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 04-08-2023
Shri Mayank Sharma - Advocate for the appellant nos.2 and 3 Gorelal
Yadav and Virendra Pandey.
Shri S.K.Kashyap - Government Advocate for respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No.19574 of 2022, an application under Section 389(1)
of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2-
Gorelal Yadav and appellant No.3- Virendra Pandey arising out of
judgment dated 07.2.2022 delivered in Sessions Trial No.40/2014 by Sessions
Judge, Umariya, District Umariya (MP).
The appellants No.2 to 3 have been convicted under Section 120-B of
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-
each, with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for these appellants submits that as per prosecution
story Antraj Singh was murdered because of a gun-shot injury. The prosecution
led evidence and P.W-3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22 and 23 entered the
witness box and deposed their statements. Out of theses prosecution witnesses,
only P.W-14 and P.W-21 took the name of the present appellants. By taking
this Court to the statement of (P.W-14) Bitti Bai, Shri Mayank Sharma, learned
counsel for the appellants urged that the only deposition is regarding selling of
blanket by these appellants to her. The statement of (P.W-21) Reetu Singh is
also in the same line. A conjoint reading of both the statements show that there
is no factual avernment in these statements which may attract Section 120-B of
IPC. Thus, these statements cannot be treated as legal evidence at all.
The attention of this Court is also drawn on para 49 to 51 of impugned
order, wherein the Court below on the basis of diary recovered form Rajeshwar
Prasad Singh, father of Abhay Pratap Singh, opined that there exists entries in
the diary to establish that some amount has been paid to these appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that mere entry regarding some
payment of amount does not prove the element of Section 120-B of IPC. Thus,
there exists no legal evidence against these appellants.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, learned Government Advocate for the State
supported the order on the basis of statements of P.W-14 and P.W-21. In
addition, it is submitted that the statement of I.O (P.W-29) shows that in the
memorandum statement of appellants recorded under Section 27 of Indian
Evidence Act, they stated that they caused murder by way of gun-shot by a
country-made pistol and in turn, that "katta" was given to accused no.1.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said part recorded in
the memorandum is not admissible in the teeth of Sections 25 and 26 of Indian
Evidence Act. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of
the proof.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any
conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellants No.2 and 3.
Accordingly, I.A No.19574 of 2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellants No.2 and 3 are hereby suspended and it is
directed that appellants No.2 and 3 be released on bail on their furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only)
each with separate solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court, Umariya,
District Umariya o n 9 th of October, 2023 and also on such other 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) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
anu
ANUPRIYA SHARMA
CHOUBEY
2023.08.04 17:52:45
+05'30'
