Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nayanmuni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2023
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 13333 of 2023
(NAYANMUNI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 21-12-2023
Shri Deepak Shrivastav- Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Purushottam Tanwar- Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No.19565/2023, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellants seeking suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Appellant No.1 stands convicted under Section 380 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.3000/- and appellants No.2
and 3 stand convicted under Section 380/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
five-five years' RI with fine of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.3000/- respectviely with default
stipulations vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.09.2023 passed
by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, District Vidisha (M.P.) in ST No.29 of
2022.
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the identity of appellants were
not proved beyond doubt. Learned counsel referring to Paras No.5 and 8 of
complainant Sarita Ishrani (PW-1) submits that there are inconsistencies and
contradictions in the evidence of complainant with regard to identity of
appellants. Learned counsel further referring to Para No.3 of the complainant
Sarita Ishrani submits that the identity of articles is also doubtful. The articles
were not produced before the Court for identification. The impugned judgment
passed by learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjecture and surmises.
The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the
present appellants without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly.
There are material contractions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses.
Learned counsel further submits that appellants have already undergone two
years' incarceration out of five years of sentence of imprisonment. There is no
likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned
Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellants may be
suspended and they may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that
application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellants shall remain suspended during pendency of
this appeal and they shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with
one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court
and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for
their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 02.02.2024 and on
further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.
Accordingly, I.A. No.19565/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Avi
