Madhya Pradesh High Court
Purshotam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 14417 of 2023
(PURSHOTAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 20-12-2023
Shri Girish Desai - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Onkar Singh Sisodiya - Advocate for the objector [OBJ].
Shri Kratik Mandloi - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court is available.
Heard on the question of admission.
Perused the memorandum an appeal.
Appeal is arguable hence admitted.
Heard on I.A. No.18838/2023 on behalf of appellant No.4 Vinod Kumar
Choudhary S/o Rameshchandra Choudhary under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C
for suspension of jail sentence.
The appellant/accused has been convicted under section 307 read with
Section 34 of the IPC for 5 years R.I. and Rs.1500/- fine with default stipulation
and under Section 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act for 6 months RI and Rs.500/- fine
with default stipulation in Sessions Trial No.82/2019 by the First Additional
Sessions Judge, District Dhar by judgment dated 03.11.2023.
As per the prosecution, on 15.08.2018 at about 10:30 am victim Rahul
was going to his house. Applicant/accused Vinod Kumar and co-accused / co-
appellants Purushottam, Pankaj and Aman stopped Rahul and pressurized him
to settle the matter pending before the Civil Court regarding property. Upon
which appellant/accused caused injuries to Rahul and Vinod inflicted the injuries
by sword. Total 10 injuries were found on the body of Rahul and he was
admitted to District Hospital Dhar and then treated in Medanta Hospital, Indore
till 23.08.2018.
It is submitted that trial Court did not appreciate evidence and the
documents available on record including the cross-case in S.T. No.02/2022 in
which injured Rahul and Punnibai have been convicted by the trial Court for six
months RI. Civil Suit RCS No.A-600066/2014 has already been decided in
favour of appellants/accused. Independent witnesses have been turned hostile.
Present appellant is serving as JCO in the Army. He is to retire within four
months. His service career will be affected if sentence is not suspended.
Learned counsel for the victim opposed the prayer submitting that in case
of suspension of sentence of the appellant, the appellant/accused will create
harm to them. An affidavit of victim Rahul and Punnibai has been filed
alongwith the objection.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State also has opposed the prayer.
Perused the para 32 of the judgment in which trial Court has recorded the
finding that the incident narrated in cross-case S.T. No.02/2020 and incidents of
this case occurred on the same day at the same place and both the parties were
present at the place of incidents but the evidence available on the record is not
sufficient to determine that who was the aggressor. Considering this finding of
trial Court, application on behalf of Vinod under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. is
allowed and sentence imposed on appellant/accused No.4 Vinod Kumar is
suspended.
Accordingly, I.A No. 18838/2023 is allowed. The jail sentence of
appellant No.4 Vinod Kumar is suspended upon his depositing the fine
amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court for his/her appearance before the Registry of this
Court on 8/2/2024 and all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the
Registry.
With the aforesaid, I.A. is disposed off.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Shilpa
