Heera Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10290 MP

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                               CRA No. 1558 of 2021
                    (HEERA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 06-07-2023
      Shri B. K. Vaishya - Advocate for the appellant.

      Shri Devendra Shukla - Panel Lawyer for the State.

      Heard on I.A No.14478/2023, which is second application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, moved on behalf
of the appellant. His first application was dismissed on merits vide order dated

14.2.2022

.

The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 323/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months with a fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulations. The appellant is in judicial custody since the date of judgment i.e. 15.2.2021.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. The learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that there are material omissions and contradictions in

the versions of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that there is no likelihood of the hearing of appeal in near future. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and prays for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and record of the court below.

It is claimed that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the defence

raised by the appellant. For this, the admission made by complainant Buddhu Singh (P.W.1) in para 4 of his cross-examination and the testimony of neighbour Shiv Kumar (P.W.5), who has turned hostile, has been relied upon during the submissions made before this Court. But the alleged admission does not relate to the incident under question. Nowhere the witness Buddhu Singh has admitted that on the date of incident, he was molesting the modesty of a woman of appellant's family. The testimony of hostile witness cannot be the sole basis to allow the present second application for suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed. List for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

ps

Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.07.07 11:33:12 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.23