Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 8693 of 2022
(BRAJESH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 31-01-2023
Shri Surajbhan Lodhi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri A.K.Nirankari, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.17096 of 2022, which is the first application under
Section 389 of CrPC filed on behalf of appellant No.4- Pramod Kevat seeking
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant No.4 alongwith other accused persons stood convicted under
Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment
with fine of Rs.2000/- and under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2022 passed by Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial
No. 23/2006.
Appellant No.4 has already undergone jail sentence of about five months.
Learned counsel for the appellants at the out set submits that it is a case
of false implication and distinguishable from other accused persons/appellants
inasmuch as his name has neither appeared in Dehati Nalish (Ex.P/1) nor in the
FIR (Ex.P/25). Even in the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161
of Cr.P.C. no act much less overt act is attributed to the appellant in any
manner whatsoever. The trial court indeed has considered the evidence of
Radhakrishna Sharma (P.W.3), Kok Singh (P.W.4) and Ramjilal (P.W.6) in
para 27,28 and 30 to implicate the applicant on ocular evidence that the
appellant was part of unlawful assembly and assaulted the deceased with lathi
but the cross examination of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 suggest that the
evidence suffers from contradictions and omissions if juxtapositioned with the
statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Under such circumstances,
the complicity of the appellant is said to be on unreliable evidence. The
appellant was extended benefit of anticipatory bail during trial. The appellant has
no criminal antecedents. On such grounds, learned counsel prays for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.4.
Per contra, Shri A.K.Nirankari, learned Counsel for the State opposes
the application supporting the impugned judgment and referring to
aforementioned paras 27,28 and 30, he submits that appellant's name and act
are clearly spelled out from the evidence of the witnesses named in such
paragraphs, albeit, his name does not appear with other accused persons either
in Dehati Nalishi or in FIR, therefore, complicity of the appellant can not be
ruled out in the matter of suspension of sentence. On such grounds, he prays
for dismissal of the application.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting on rival contentions touching merits of the case, but in the
obtaining facts and circumstances, we are of the view that case of appellant
No.4 is altogether different from that of the other accused persons, hence,
appellant No.4 deserves to be and accordingly extended the benefit of
suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant No.4 -
Pramod Kevat shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh
only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court. Appellant No.4 Pramod Kevat is directed to appear before the Registry
of this Court first on 23.03.2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be
fixed by Office in this behalf with following other conditions:-
( i) Appellant No.4 Pramod Kevat will abide by the terms and
conditions of various circulars and orders issued by the Central
Government and the State Government as well as the local administration
from time to time in the matter of maintaining social distancing, physical
distancing, hygiene, etc. to avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus
(Covid-19);
(ii) The concerned Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing
appellant No.4 Pramod Kevat his medical examination be conducted
through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any
symptom of COVID-19 then the consequential follow up action including
the isolation/quarantine or any further test requested be undertaken
immediately.
(iii) On violation of the conditions, State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of disposal of the
application for suspension of sentence and shall have no hearing on the merits
of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2023.01.31
18:14:14 +05'30'
