Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1557 MP
Judgement Date : 27 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 4093 of 2021
(RATIRAM AHIRWAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-01-2023
Shri Siddhant Kochar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Jha - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.16025 of 2022 which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellants, namely, Appellant No.1 - Ratiram Ahirwar and Appellant No.2- Shivraj Ahirwar. It is third
application on behalf of the appellant No.1. His earlier applications I.A. No.14831 of 2021 and I.A. No.19386 of 2021 were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 22.11.2021 and 25.02.2022. This is second application in respect of the appellant No.2
- Shivraj Ahirwar. His first application I.A. No.14831 of 2021 was dismissed on 25.02.2022 as withdrawn with the liberty to file fresh application after six months.
By the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court the appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149 and 323 r/w 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years (fine Rs.500/-), RI for life (Rs.5,000/- ) and RI for 3 months (fine Rs.500/-) respectively with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submitted that the present
appellants have been erroneously convicted. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It is urged that this Court while dismissing the earlier application as withdrawn vide order dated 25.02.2022 had granted liberty to renew the prayer. It is further contended that the complainant party were aggressive and they came to the house of the appellants. In the said fight, wife of the appellant No.3 Gayabai sustained several injuries but the said aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. There are material contradictions and Signature Not Verified SAN
omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. In support of his Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA
contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decision in SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2023.01.27 18:03:06 IST
the case of Mahavir Singh v. State of MP, (2016) 10 SCC 230 . Therefore, prayer has been made to suspend the sentence of the present appellants.
Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There are sufficient evidence available on record against the present accused appellants. Though there is counter case against the complainant party however, from perusal of the record it is apparent they have been acquitted. In the present case FSL report is also against the appellants. Injured eye witnesses have also stated against the present appellants. Hence, looking to the nature of offence and keeping in view the active participation of the present appellants in commission of crime in question, this Court is of the
considered opinion that it is not a fit case where benefit of suspension of sentence should be granted.
Accordingly, I.A. No.16025 of 2022 is hereby dismissed. List the case for final hearing in due course.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO) (DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
ks
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Date: 2023.01.27 18:03:06 IST
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!