Narayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11319 MP

                                 1 of 4




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                           CRA No. 216 of 2015
                    (NARAYAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


Dated : 20-07-2023
         Shri A.K.Jain, -Advocate for the appellant.

         Shri Rajeev Upadhyay - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/

State.

Heard on I.A.No.12067 of 2023, fifth application under Section

389 (1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on

behalf of sole appellant Narayan. Earlier all the applications were

dismissed as withdrawn.

Appellant stands convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with

default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 08.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh) in Sessions Trial No.170/2013.

As per the communication from Central Jail, Gwalior dt.14.07.2023, appellant as on said date has undergone jail sentence for 9 years, 8 months

and 05 days and with remission 12 years and 23 days.

As per prosecution story, a missing report was lodged on 07.02.2013 by one K.C.Chauhan, SHO of Police Station/I.O. of the case

that a dead body of unknown person was lying near a well situated in

Naria village. The blood was oozing out from the occipital region due to

wounds thereon. Besides, from the spot one purse and one mobile form

was seized. From the purse a pan card and voter card of one Halke S/o 2 of 4

Prem and one slip bearing Mobile Number 8085204825 was found. After

having contacted on said mobile number, the same was found to be of one

Balli Kushwah R/o Narwar. He has stated that Halke S/o Prem Kushwah is

his brother. Family members of the deceased came on the spot and identified the dead body as that of Halke Kushwah. The Panchanama was

prepared. Thereafter investigation started. During the course of the

investigation accused persons were apprehended. Their statements under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act were also recorded. Upon collection of incriminating material challan was filed and the case was put to sessions trial. The learned Sessions Judge, upon critical evaluation of the evidence

placed on record has convicted the appellant alongwith co-accused Lakhan and sentenced as aforesaid.

Learned Counsel for the appellant at the first instance submits that

the co-accused Lakhan, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.87/2015 has been extended benefit of suspension of sentence vide order dated

26.04.2016. The appellant has undergone jail incarceration of 9 years, 8 months and 05 days and with remission 12 years and 23 days. Hence, primarily the prayer is made for suspension on the ground of long jail

incarceration. On merits also, learned counsel tried to persuade this court

that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity of approach and based

on surmises and conjectures. The appeal is of the year 2015 and there is

no likelihood of early hearing of appeal. On aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the 3 of 4

respondent/State opposes the application while supporting the impugned

judgment. Learned counsel points out that the details of 15 injuries

suffered by the deceased as detailed in para 11 of the impugned judgment.

That apart, in the disclosure memo of the appellant, he has admitted that he had hit the deceased with iron road seized from him. The case of the

appellant is distinguishable from that of Lakhan as complicity of Lakhan is

only for the reason that he was found in possession of the loot items,

which were looted by the appellant and the deceased in another offence.

Looking to the number of injuries suffered by the deceased, allegedly caused by the appellant and in obtaining facts and circumstances, the

appellant is not entitled for the benefit of suspension of sentence, hence, prayed for dismissal of the application.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court

refrains from commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced touching the merits of the case, but regard being had to the fact of long jail

incarceration of 9 years, 8 months and 05 days and with remission 12 years

and 23 days. so also the fact that the appeal being of 2015 is not likely to be decided in the near future, we are of the view that present appellant is

entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly, I.A.No.12067 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during

pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to

verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on his

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac 4 of 4

only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

Trial Court subject to verification of factum regarding deposit of fine amount.

Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court

first on 22.09.2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this

behalf.

Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.

Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

      (ROHIT ARYA                                         (SUNITA YADAV)
         JUDGE                                                JUDGE

 SP

SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2023.07.21
11:46:08 +05'30'