Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind @ Dharmendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2023
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 12565 of 2022
(ARVIND @ DHARMENDRA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 14-02-2023
Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Pramod Choubey - Government Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for respondent No.2
Heard on the question of admission.
Record of the trial Court perused.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A No. 25230/2022 which is an application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf
of appellants Arvind @ Dharmendra, Rajesh Rai, Anand Rai, Ramesh Rai and
Jitendra Rai.
T h e appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under
Sections 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 07 years and fine of
Rs. 5000/- to each with default stipulations vide judgment dated 20.12.2022
passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Jatara, District Teekamgarh (M.P.)
in S.T. No. 19/2019.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are
innocent and have falsely been implicated in the matter. The learned trial Court
has erred in not appreciating the fact that there are material omissions and
contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted
Signature Not Verified
SAN
that no weapon was seized from the appellant. It is also submitted that there is
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN
Date: 2023.02.16 15:02:52 IST
no material on record to indicate that the appellants have committed the said
offence. The essential ingredients of Section 34 of IPC is completely missing.
There is no intention to kill the complainant because the injury has been
inflicted on the leg below the knee and the leg does not fall under the category
of traumatic organ therefore, Section 307 of IPC is not attracted in the matter. It
is further submitted that, there are material contradiction and omission in the
testimony of witnesses regarding time and place of occurrence of the incident.
It is also submitted that from the very beginning, the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the competent Court below and after direction
of the Court, Crime No. 228/2015 was registered by the Police Station Jatara
and the investigation was done by Dy. S.P. (AJAK) and khatma report was
filed. It is also submitted that Dr. Vikas Jain (PW-5) in his statement recorded
before the trial Court has not clarified that whether the injury caused to the
complainant is fatal or not. The appellants were on bail during the trial and they
did not misuse the liberty granted to them. It is further submitted that appellants
are in jail since 20.12.2022 and there is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near
future. Hence, counsel for the appellants prayed that application for suspension
of sentence may be allowed.
Learned Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel
for respondent No.2 on the other hand has opposed the application and prays
for its rejection.
Shri Kochar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P.
Vs.Kashiram & Ors. (2009)4 SCC 26; State of M.P. Vs. Harjeet Singh &
Signature Not Verified
Ors. (2019)20 SCC 524; State of M.P. Vs. Kanha @ Omprakash (2019)3
SAN
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN
SCC 605; State of M.P. Vs. Mohan & ors. (2013)14 SCC 116 and Jage
Date: 2023.02.16 15:02:52 IST
Ram & Ors. Vs.State of Haryana (2015)11 SCC 366.
I n due consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the
appellants, on perusal of the record and looking to the fact and circumstances
of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the
appellants.
Accordingly, aforesaid I.A. filed on behalf of appellants is allowed and it
is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount if already not deposited and
on furnishing personal bond by appellants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before the
concerned trial Court, appellants be released from the custody, if not required
in any other case and the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of
this appeal.
T he appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence
before the concerned trial Court on 26.04.2023 and on all such subsequent
dates, which are fixed in this regard by the concerned trial Court.
List in due course for final hearing.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
Amitabh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN
Date: 2023.02.16 15:02:52 IST
