Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sadanand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2670 of 2022
(SADANAND AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 28-02-2023
Shri Rahul Rawat - Advocate for the appellant No.3.
Shri Aditya Narayan Gupta - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.12923/2022, which is the first application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant No.3 Umesh @ Bholu.
The appellants have filed this Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31/01/2022 passed by First
Additional Sessions Judge, Harda, District Harda (M.P.) in Sessions Trial
No.23/2018, whereby the appellant No.3 has been convicted under Sections
302/34, 307/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with
stipulation and with a direction that substantive jail sentence shall run
concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant No.3 submits that no independent
witness has been examined in the case. Firoj Khan (PW-1) was examined as
eye-witness, who is the relative of deceased and interested witness. He was tried
by Sessions Court in Harda in S.T.No.32/2017 on the complaint of appellant
No.2 Ramraj Dhangar, that as Firoj Khan (PW-1) used to harass the daughter of
appellant No.1 Sadanand, due to which she had committed suicide. Since, the
FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against Firoj Khan, therefore, Firoj Khan has given
the evidence against the present appellants malafidely. Learned counsel drew the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 3/1/2023
6:49:39 PM
attention of this Court at Paras-10, 22, 28 & 48 of the cross-examination of
Firoj Khan (PW-1) and spot map (Ex.P-5).
Learned counsel for the appellant No.3 further submits that there are lot
of contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses
when examined before the trial Court. There is no active participation of
appellant No.3 in the crime, therefore, appellant No.3 could not be punished
with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. It is also argued that there is difference in
the prosecution story as well as in the spot map. He further submits that 15
accused persons were tried by the trial Court and after the trial only appellants
were convicted and sentenced, whereas all the accused persons were named in
the FIR, therefore, trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellant
No.3. The appellant No.3 was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. This appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no possibility
of early hearing of this Appeal in near future, hence prays for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.3. In support of his contention
learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 10
SCC 220, Virendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 407
and Dhanna Vs. State of M.P. & Kanhiyalal & Another Vs. State of M.P.,
(1996) 10 SCC 79.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer and
submits that the case of appellant No. 3 is different from the persons who were
acquitted by the trial Court and submits that the evidence against the appellant
No.3 is that he climbed on the tractor and provoked the co-accused persons to
kill the complainant party and said “no one should escape from the spot
Signature Not Verified
aliveâ€. Learned Government Advocate also drew attention of this Court
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 3/1/2023
6:49:39 PM
towards Para-2 of chief-examination of the statement of Sabir Shah (PW-2). On
the strength of above, it is prayed that the application filed by appellant No.3 for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail should be dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
It reveals from the FIR (Ex.P-7) and dehati nalisi (Ex.P-1) that at the time
of incident appellant No.3 Umesh climbed on the tractor, but there are no
averments regarding provocation to kill the complainant party. No fire arm was
seized from the possession of appellant No.3 and also there is no allegation
against the appellant No.3 that he has fired at the time of incident.
Considering the overall facts and totality of the circumstances, the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the role
attributed to the appellant No.3, without expressing any conclusive opinion on
merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant
No.3. Accordingly, I.A No.12923/2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant No.3 Umesh @ Bholu is hereby suspended
and it is directed that the appellant No.3 be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 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, Harda on 01st May, 2023
and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this regard
during the pendency of this Appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 3/1/2023
6:49:39 PM
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 3/1/2023
6:49:39 PM
