Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 December, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 581 of 2014
(JAGDISH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 14-12-2023
Mrs. Kusum Sharma- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Heard o n IA No.21985 of 2023, thirteenth application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant- Jagdish Kushwah.
Appellant s to o d convicted under Section 120(b) of IPC and under
Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment with a fine
of Rs.5,000/- and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 27.03.2014 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge,
Shivpuri, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in S.T. No.42/2013.
Appellant so far has undergone jail sentence of ten years, five months and
five days.
As per prosecution story, on 05/08/2012, at about 1:00 pm in the night
daughter in law of complainant Nehaneram Kushwah namely accused Bhuri got
him awaken and apprised that she was along with her husband Devu @
Devendra was sleeping in the shop and the shutter of the shop was open. When
a persons leg touched her hand she awoke. The said person rushed outside the
shop then she saw that he was wielding "Baka" in his hand and was wearing
white shirt. Three more persons were also outside. When she saw her husband
Devu@ Devendra she found that he was having injury marks on his face and
neck he was unable to speak. Then complainant saw that he had died on the
spot and those persons had caused homicidal death of Devu @ Devendra by
inflicting injuries. On the basis of such report, FIR was registered Ex.P-1
thereafter, investigation was conducted. Upon recording of statement of
witnesses and collection of incriminating material, challan was filed. The case
was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The Special Court upon critical
evaluation of the evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the
present appellant as referred above.
Learned counsel for appellant while criticizing the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence submits that its a case of false implication, the
impugned judgment suffers from patent perversity as relevant evidence has been
ignored. The judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures. Further
elaborating her submissions. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that entire prosecution story implicating the applicant commenced on the
strength of the statement of the child witness son of the deceased namely Kunal
(PW-3) who named the appellant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and also in ocular evidence during trial. However, testimony has not been
accepted by Sessions Court as detailed in Para-19. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that appellant so far has undergone ten years, five
months and five days. The appeal being of the year 2014 and there is no
likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future. Hence, he prays for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the
impugned judgement is based on the substantial evidence on record and has
complete chain leading to the conclusion of Sessions Court. Hence, no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions touching merits of the case, but
regard being had to the fact that the present appellant so far has already
undergone incarceration for ten years, five months and five days coupled with
the fact that present appeal being of the year 2014 and is not likely to be
decided early in the near future, the present appellant is entitled to the benefit of
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, IA No.21985 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of present appellant-Jagdish 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.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with
one 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 14.02.2024 and
thereafter, on all 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 trial Court for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
shivani
