Jyoti @ Chinki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2889 MP

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                       CRA No. 2202 of 2023
                                        (JYOTI @ CHINKI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 16-02-2023
                                 Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.

                                 Shri Abhishek Bhargava, learned Government Advocate for the
                           respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.2031/2023, which is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence.

The appellants have been convicted under Section 324/34, 342/34 and 306/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 Year R.I., 1 Year R.I. and 5 Years R.I. each with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs. 1000/ and Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 03.02.2023 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw this application in respect of appellant No.3/Chhotu with liberty to file after sometime.

Prayer is allowed.

With the aforesaid liberty, I.A. No.2031/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of appellant No.3/Chhotu.

Now this application is being considered for the appellant No.1/Jyoti @ Chinki and appellant No.2 Nirmala.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the allegation against the appellant No.1 and 2 is that they caught hold the deceased and appellant No.3 has cut the hair. He felt insulted and consumed some poisonous substance. He submits that there is no ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. In support of his Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN NAYAK Signing time: 16-02-2023 18:11:19

contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2021) 2 SCC 427. The appellants were on bail during the trial.

Government Advocate opposes the aforesaid application and prays for its rejection.

Heard both sides.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the application for suspension of custodial sentence moved on behalf of both

the appellants deserved to be allowed.

Accordingly, No.2031/2023, is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the No.1/Jyoti @ Chinki and appellant No.2 Nirmala in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and on deposit of fine amount (if not already deposited), the execution of custodial part of the jail sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.

The appellants after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the Registry of this Court on 12/09/2023 and on all such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard.

List for final hearing in due course.

Let record of the trial court be called for. Certified copy, as per rules.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN NAYAK Signing time: 16-02-2023 18:11:19

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Praveen

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN NAYAK Signing time: 16-02-2023 18:11:19