Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jivendra Singh Chandel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 5806 of 2023
(JIVENDRA SINGH CHANDEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-12-2023
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate - with Shri Mayank Sharma -
Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Pushpanjali Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Reserved on : 21.12.2023
Pronounced on : 22.12.2023
Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.
Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
ORDER
Heard on I.A No.9276/2023, which is first application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf
of appellant Jivendra Singh Chandel.
The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 304, 417 and 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10
years, R.I. for 1 year and R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.500/- and
Rs.5,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and
has falsely been implicated in the case. He also submits that the trial Court has
not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record
and committed an error in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences.
The appellant is i n custody since 20.4.2023 and the appeal would take
considerable time to conclude. He is ready 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 prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This application for suspension of sentence has been argued on the
ground that the applicant was not involved in the commission of offence for
which he was held guilty.
The learned court below has committed an error in relying upon the
CCTV footage since it was not proved that the footage was obtained from an
authorized person, it was kept in a proper custody and it was legally admissible
in evidence. It has been claimed that neither the authenticity of DVR was proved
nor the Chief Health & Medical Officer was examined.
In the light of these contentions, the record of trial court has been
perused.
From the evidence it is established that applicant was involved in seeking
the discharge of newly born child on 26.10.2013. The child was discharged at
1:00 p.m. The CCTV footage shows the applicant leaving the child and her
mother from the hospital premises at 1:40 p.m. Even if this evidence is not taken
into consideration, it is a proved fact that the child was found abandoned just
few hours later and was again brought back to the hospital at 4:00 p.m. The
child ultimately died during her treatment in the hospital. It is in the exclusive
knowledge of the applicant and the mother of child to explain the circumstances
in which they parted with the custody of child and she was found abandoned in
an agriculture field.
Since no explanation is offered by the applicant in this context nor there
is any defence evidence on record, this court is not inclined to allow the
application for suspension of sentence.
The application is dismissed.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2023.12.22 19:55:34 +05'30'
