Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu @ Pampoli Adopted vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1505 of 2017
(PAPPU @ PAMPOLI ADOPTED Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-08-2023
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the Appellant.
Shri K. K. Tiwari appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Heard o n I.A. No.6229/2023, which is second application filed under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for grant of suspension of jail sentence moved on
behalf of appellant- Pappu @ Pampoli.
Learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of
IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-,
Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. of two years with fine of Rs.
1,000/- and Section 506-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 2 years
with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulations, vide judgement of conviction
and order of sentence dated 31.07.2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions
Judge, District Shujalpur, (M.P.) in S.T. No. 43/2015.
Appellant's first application for suspension of sentence i.e., I.A.
5881/2018 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.12.2018.
The prosecution story found to be proved is that, earlier the case was
registered as a case of hanging but after the investigation and postmortem report
the offence appeared to have been a case of strangulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits he has not committed any
offence and has falsely been implicated in the case. The conduct of eye witness
Vijendra Rajput PW-7 is unnatural, which makes the statement doubtful except
the statement of PW-5 there is no other evidence available on record. There are
lot of contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and PW-7 and PW-15
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/14/2023
6:43:52 PM
2
have deposed that the deceased died due to strangulation. It is a case of suicide
not murder and there was no motive for causing the death. In similar offences
this Court as well as the Apex Court has considered and granted suspension of
sentence on completion of 8-9 years of incarceration. FSL was sent with a
delay of 17 days. Even the FSL report was not sent with the challan. The
appellant is in custody for last 8 years and 5 months. Final hearing of this
appeal is not possible in near future therefore, it is prayed that the remaining jail
sentence may be suspended and the appellant may be released on bail.
Per contra, learned G.A. for the respondent/State opposes the prayer and
submits that in para 13 and 14 of the judgment the Doctor has stated that
strangulation is not the cause of death but there are anti-mortem injuries over the
neck and other parts of the body of the deceased, which goes to show that the
deceased died due to throttling which is in the nature of homicidal in nature.
Looking to the nature and gravity of offence the sentence already undergone is
on the lesser side.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering
the evidence available on record. Earlier also vide order dated 20.12.2018 the
first application was rejected on merits and there is no change in circumstance.
Therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant suspension of sentence to
the appellant. I.A. No.6229/2023 is accordingly rejected.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/14/2023
6:43:52 PM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/14/2023
6:43:52 PM
