Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10101 MP

                                    --1--




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE

                       CRA No.6958 of 2021
                  (RAHUL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)



Dated : 04.07.2023

      Ms. Sharmila Sharma- Advocate for the appellant.

      Shri K.K. Tiwari- Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.28786/2021, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants- Rahul and Smt. Ramkanyabai. (2) The appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

          Conviction                        Sentence

       Section   Act    Imprisonment Fine                 Imprisonment in
                                     if deposited details lieu of fine

       302/34    IPC    Life         1000/-                2 months
                        Imprisonment                       additional R.I.

(3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and there are so many contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the doctor who has given the certificate has not been examined by the prosecution. PW-7 (brother of the deceased), PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are hostile and they have not

--2--

supported the prosecution story and the appellants are in jail since 05.09.2017 till now. He further submits that final hearing of the appeal will take long time and looking to the period of sentence which the appellants have suffered so far, the application for suspension of sentence be allowed.

(4) Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

(5) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (6) Considering the fact and circumstance of the case and on perusal of the record and the judgment of the trial court, it was found that the case is based on dying declaration and the dying declaration was recorded by the executive magistrate (PW-10). In dying declaration, the deceased has disclosed the names of the appellants for causing incident, hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to grant benefit of suspension of sentence and bail to the appellants. Accordingly, I.A. No.28786/2021 is rejected.

           (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI )                                   (HIRDESH)
               JUDGE                                                  JUDGE



       N.R.




Digitally signed by
NARENDRA KUMAR
RAIPURIA
Date: 2023.07.06 12:55:51
+05'30'