Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuveer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.7508 of 2022
(RAGHUVEER Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 21-06-2023
Shri Ajay Kumar Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.16236 of 2022, which is the first application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389(1) of
the Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant Raghuveer.
The appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.07.2022 passed by
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Narsinghpur, District- Narsinghpur (M.P.) in
SCATR No.104/2015, whereby the appellant and other 09 accused
persons have been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 325/149
(01 counts) and 323/149 (12 counts) of the IPC and sentenced him under
Sections 302/149, 325/149 (01 count), 323/149 (12 counts) and 148 of
the IPC, to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.1000/-, R.I. for 1 year
with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 6 months (for each count) and R.I. for 1
year respectively with default stipulation and with a direction that
substantive jail sentence shall run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial
Judge erred in holding that the appellant and nine other co-accused
committed the murder of Ayodhya Prasad, caused grievous injury to
Vijay Ahirwar (PW-11) and caused simple injury to 12 persons whereas
learned trial Judge acquitted other 10 accused persons on the ground that
the witnesses have not stated anything against them, inspite of the fact
that their names are in the previous statement and in Dehati Nalshi.
Ayodhya Prasad previously was examined by Dr. Upendra Singh (PW-
19) and he found only 6 injuries and all were on non vital part of the
body. There is no allegation that the appellant was present in front of the
house of the deceased Ayodhya Prasad, at the time of the incident. The
appellant was present in another place, so it appears that he has falsely
been implicated in the case. Eye-witness Raju Harijan (PW-1) has not
taken the name of appellant in his statement given before the trial Court.
Swatantra Ahirwar (PW-3) has turned hostile before the trial Court.
Vijay Choudhary (PW-11) has also not taken the name of present
appellant in his statement before the trial Court. Other witnesses PW-5,
PW-6, PW-7, PW-9, PW-10, PW-12, PW-13 and PW-14 have also not
taken the name of the appellant as assaillant, in their court statement.
As per prosecution case, a stick has been seized from the possession of
the appellant. But as per the FSL report (Ex.P-112) no blood stains were
found on stick (Article-W).
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty
granted to him and appellant has completed about four years in
incarceration. He further submits that this is an appeal of the year 2022
and there is no possibility of early hearing of this appeal in near future,
hence, prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail
to appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and submits that trial Court has passed the judgment after proper
appreciation of evidence that came on record and has rightly held the
appellant guilty, hence, prays for rejection of application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without express-
ing any conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A. 16236 of
2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited),
the remaining jail sentence of appellant Raghuveer is hereby sus-
pended and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his fur-
nishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thou-
sand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court with a further direction to appear before the Trial
Court, Narsinghpur on 11th September, 2023 and also on such other
dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this regard during the pen-
dency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
DPS
DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH
2023.06.22 12:04:25 +05'30'
