Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravishankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8817 of 2022
(RAVISHANKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
CRA/10008/2022
(PUSHPRAJ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 14-02-2023
Ms. Dipti Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant in Cr.A. No.
10008/2022.
Shri B.K. Vaishya - Advocate for the appellant in Cr.A. No.
8817/2022.
Shri S.K. Gupta - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State
Heard on I.A. No.20576/2022 an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
As per I.A. No.20576/2022 this appeal has been preferred after a delay
of two days. Considering only two days' delay I.A. No.20576/2022 is allowed
and delay caused in presentation of appeal for appellant - Pushpraj singh is
hereby condoned.
Trial Court record has been received.
Heard on admission.
Trial Court record perused.
Prima facie this appeal seems to be arguable. Hence, admitted for final
hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No. 22906/2022 and I.A. No.20575/2022, applications
under Section 389(1) of the Cr. P.C. for grant of bail pending the appeal.
Appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under
Section 304 Part II of IPC and have been sentenced to 5 years R.I.and fine of
Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment dated 29.08.2022 passed in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/16/2023
2:05:13 PM
Special Electricity Case No.01/2017 by Special Judge Electricity Act, 2003,
Waidhan Distt. Singrauli (M.P.).
Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that learned Trial
Court has erroneously convicted the appellants. No eye witness has supported
the prosecution story. Only on the basis of the evidence of the mother of the
deceased PW-1, who is a hearsay witness, appellants have been convicted. It is
contended that at the time of death of boy through electrocution she was not
present on the spot. Only on the basis of her hearsay evidence appellants have
been convicted. Learned Trial Court has not appropriate appreciate the
evidence of the witnesses and has believed on that hearsay evidence which is
not admissible. Appellants have fair chance to succeed in appeal. Therefore, it
has been prayed that appellants be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State has
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellants.
Appellants are in jail since 29.08.2022 and earlier too they had been in jail
for some period.
I have gone through the evidence of PW-1 and other witnesses on
record. It is a case in which deceased has died due to electrocution. Having
considered the evidence of PW-1 and other witnesses on record, I am of the
view that it is a case in which the appellants may be released on bail as case for
suspension of jail sentence is made out.
Consequently, I.A. No. 22906/2022 and I.A. No. 20575/2022 are
allowed. The execution of jail sentence of appellants-Ravishankar and
Puspraj Singh is hereby suspended subject to depositing the fine amount, (if
not already deposited). It is directed that the appellants be released on bail
on their furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/16/2023
2:05:13 PM
thousand only) each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial
Court on 10.07.2023 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by that
Court in this regard till disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
VPA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/16/2023
2:05:13 PM
