Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajpal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 825 of 2020
(RAJPAL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 21-07-2023
Shri Siddharth Datt -Advocate for the appellant no.3- Raghunath.
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent-State of
M.P.
Heard on IA No.12857/2022 an application under Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant
no.3-Raghunath arising out of judgment dated 15.01.2020 delivered in
SCATR No.115/2017 by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Khandwa, M.P.
T he appellant no.3 has been convicted under Section 147 of IPC to
undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.100/-, under Section 323/149 of IPC
to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.100/- under Section 302/149 to
undergo RI for Life and fine of Rs.100/ with default stipulation.
A s per prosecution story on 10.9.2017 the complainant Ajay was
travelling with Sandeep (deceased) in a motorcycle. Rajpal stopped the
motorcycle midway and started abusing him. Raghunath, Ajay, Rajesh, Suraj,
Sonu and Akash allegedly caused injuries by means of Lakdi and rod.
Learned counsel for these appellant no.3 submits that when MLC of
deceased was conducted by Dr. Sharan Harne (PW-11), only two injuries were
found whereas postmortem supported by Dr. V.K. Singh (PW-12) shows that
there were 22 injuries. The discrepancies between the number of injuries could
not be explained. 'Lakdis' were allegedly recovered from the appellant no. 3
but no blood stains were found. The postmortem report also shows the nature
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 7/22/2023
11:46:00 AM
of injuries are superficial/simple in nature. The incident had taken place on
10.9.2017, whereas FIR was belated lodged on 12.9.2017. Statement of PW-1
(Para -14) shows that because of eve teasing by Sandeep (deceased) , the
women of that colony assaulted him. The appellant no. 3 remained in
custody for more than 3 years and eight months. Final hearing of this appeal of
2020 is not possible in near future. Thus, remaining jail sentence of the
appellant no.3 may be suspended.
The prayer for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail is
opposed by learned Government Advocate on the basis of objection.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop without commencing
anything on merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant no.3.
Accordingly, IA No.12857/2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant no.3-Raghunath is hereby suspended
and it is directed that the appellant no.3 be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with
one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a
further direction to appear before the concerning trial court Khandwa on 9th
October, 2023 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial court
in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
C c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 7/22/2023
11:46:00 AM
