Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gupt@ Govind Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 August, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7091 of 2023
(GUPT@ GOVIND YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 17-08-2023
Shri Jeetendra Kumar Dixit - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ram Girish Verma - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on admission.
The appeal being arguable is admitted for hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.12953/2023, which is first application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail, moved on behalf of appellant no.1 Gupt alias
Govind Yadav, appellant no.2 Halke alias Dhaniram and appellant no.3
Vinod Yadav.
Appellant no.1 has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of
Rs.1500/-, Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months
and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.
Appellant no.2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of
Rs.1500/- and Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3
months and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.
Appellant no.3 has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of
Rs.1500/- and Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3
months and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are
innocent and have falsely been implicated in the matter. He also submits that the
trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence
available on record and committed error in convicting the appellants for
aforesaid offences. Appeal would take considerable time to conclude. They are
read y to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and
conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the
application for suspension of sentence may be considered.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
application and prays for its rejection.
Heard counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and record of the
court below.
This application for suspension of sentence has been argued on the point
that the statements of prosecution witnesses are not stable on the point whether
a "baka" or an axe (kulhadi) was used to cause injuries and it has been admitted
by the prosecution witness S. H. Ali (P.W.13) that no report was lodged by
Hemant (P.W.14). Further, there was a cross-case which also resulted in
conviction, seizure witnesses and eyewitness Chotu alias Jeetendra (P.W.4) had
turned hostile. The existence of cross-case is found proved even by the trial
court but conviction was not argued before the trial court. Further, the
prosecution case has been duly supported by Vasant (P.W.1), Gajendra
(P.W.2), Roop Kumar (P.W.7) and Hemant (P.W.14) and to some extent by
Chutte Raja (P.W.5).
Looking to these corroboratve evidence and merely for some minor
contradictions about the weapon used for causing the injuries, the sentence
passed by the trial court cannot be interfered with.
The application is, therefore, dismissed.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Digitally signed by PRASHANT
SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2023.08.18 13:53:48 +05'30'
Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8
