Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra vs State Of M.P. on 28 June, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 29 of 2022
(JITENDRA Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 28-06-2023
Shri Rituraj Bhatnagar - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Amit Rawal - Government Advocate for State.
Heard on I.A.No. 13708/2022, which is first application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence on
behalf of the appellant Jitendra.
Appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 13.12.2021 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 500128/20163 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar
District Dhar (M.P.) under Section 302/34 read with Section 120(B)(1), 324/34
(2 counts) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and 1 year RI (each count) with fine of
Rs.8,000/- with usual default stipulation.
A s per the prosecution story, on 23.5.2016, deceased Chhagan was
sleeping in the courtyard of his house. Near about 12 in the night complainant
Dariyavbai heard voice of his husband and she woke up and saw that two
persons having sword in their hand were assaulting Chhagan. When she tried to
save, one of them assaulted on his head. Thereafter they fled away. Dehati
Nalishi 0/2016 was registered on 24.7.2016 against unknown person. Thereafter
statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded in which also name of
this appellant was not disclosed. Police registered an FIR at crime No.
294/2016 under sections 302, 307/34 of IPC. The investigation reveals that
Shankar father of deceased and Parmeshwar, Jitendra are real brother and they
murdered Chhagan because of property dispute. Accordingly they were made
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 28-06-2023
19:08:39
2
accused. They faced trial under sections 302/34, 120(B)(1), 324/34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this appellant is real
brother of deceased. He known to the complainant and despite that complainant
did not disclose his name in the FIR as well as 161 statement. During trial this
appellant was on bail. This appeal is not likely to be heard finally in near future
and it would take sufficient long time. He has no criminal past. There is a
strong case in favour of the appellant. Hence, the execution of the remaining
part of the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the final disposal of
this appeal.
P e r contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the
application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the
allegation levelled against the appellant and also taking note of the fact that
Dariyavbai in her cross-examination deposed that she disclosed name of
appellant before the Police, but police did not record his name, no documentary
evidence has been filed in respect of property dispute of appellant with
deceased, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining custodial sentence of the
appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 13708/2022 is allowed and it is directed subject to
deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, and subject to furnishing
personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of learned trial Court, the execution of remaining custodial part of the sentence
of the appellant shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his presence before
the Registry of this Court on 04/12/2023 and on all such subsequent dates,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 28-06-2023
19:08:39
which are fixed in this behalf.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 28-06-2023
19:08:39
