Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tarachand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 8533 of 2023
(TARACHAND AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 12-12-2023
Shri Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K. K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Vasant Zokarkar, learned counsel for the Respondent [R-1][OBJ].
Heard on I.A.No.15989/2023, which is first application under Section
389 for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.2-Viju @ Vijay
Digvijaysingh S/o Tarachand Rathod who stands convicted vide judgment
dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sendhwa,
District Barwani (MP) in Session Trial No. 69/2019 for offence punishable
under Section 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and default stipulation.
2. The prosecution case found to be proved is that on 20.01.2019, a
complaint was lodged to the effect that the deceased Manoj Thakur, as per daily
routine, had gone for a walk on Kermala Road. After some time, he was found
dead near Rahuf's plots where houses were under construction. On the basis of
the aforesaid, crime was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant No.2 has been
falsely implicated in the case. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is
submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish any chain of
circumstances appearing against the appellant leading to the conclusion of his
guilt in this case. The present appellant has been implicated only on the basis of
a CDR which is not even in the proximity with the commission of crime. No
role has been attributed against the present appellant. There was no eye-witness
or last seen witness to the incident. No seizure has been made from the
possession of the appellant except a mobile phone which did not belong to him.
Name of the appellant does not find place in the dehati nalishi or the FIR. It was
only by way of an improvement that the present appellant has been implicated in
the crime. There was no motive for the present appellant to commit the
aforesaid crime. In similarly situated, application for suspension of sentence of
co-accused - Tarachand has been allowed and he has enlarged on bail vide
order dated 11.10.2023. The case of the present appellant is on the same
footing. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is prayed that the jail sentence of
appellant No.2 be suspended and he be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State as well as learned counsel
for the objector opposes the prayer for suspension of jail sentence and prays
for its rejection.
5. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A. No.15989/2023 is
allowed.It it is directed that upon depositing the fine amount and on furnishing
a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court,
the substantive jail sentence of the appellant No.2-Viju @ Vijay
Digvijaysingh S/o Tarachand Rathod shall remain suspended till the final
disposal of the appeal and he shall be released on bail. He shall appear before
the concerned trial Court firstly on 23.01.2024 and on all other subsequent
dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by that Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
