Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 June, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 5 of 2020
(GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 30-06-2023
Shri Vivek Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Gaurav Singh Chouhan - Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
None for objector.
Heard on I.A.No. 15074/2022 which is first application filed u/s. 389 of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant No.2 - Rupesh.
The appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 7.12.2019 passed by
Addl. Sessions Judge, Shujalpur District Shajapur in Sessions Trial No.
129/2016 u/s.302/34 and 506/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 9,000/- with default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, complainant Rakesh Mewada lodged an FIR at
police station Akodiya on 21.4.2016 that on 21..4.2016 near about 9 pm his
maternal uncle Jeevan Singh was standing in front of his house, at that time
Babulal alongwith his sons Ghanshyam and Rupesh came there. Ghanshyam
was having Farsi in his hand and Rupes was stick in his hand and started
dispute in respect of assault to their children. They started abusing by filthy
language. When Jeevan Singh objected, Babulal caught hold him and Rupesh
gave a blow by stick on his hand. Ghanshyam gave a blow by Farsi on his
head. Jeevan started bleeding. Accused persons fled away from the spot by
giving threat. FIR was registered under section324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of
IPC. Jeevan was admitted in hospital but he was discharged. He died at home
on 26.4.2016. Thereafter section 302 of IPC has been added.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 30-06-2023
18:55:04
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the medical
evidence, deceased Jeevan died because of head injury caused by Ghanshyam.
This appellant has caused injury to deceased on his hand which has caused
fracture. He is in jail last seven years. There was no intention to kill the
deceased. The dispute suddenly arose on petty issue. He has no criminal past.
He therefore, prays for suspension of jail sentence of appellant and to release
him on bail.
On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer and
prays for rejection of the application.
I n view of the above facts and circumstances of the case in totality,
without commenting anything on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to
suspend the jail sentence of this appellant no.2 Rupesh.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 15074/2022 is allowed and it stands closed. It is
directed that subject to deposit of fine amount with the trial Court, if not already
deposited, and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant No.2 Rupesh in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 11.12.2023 and on all such subsequent dates,
which are fixed in this behalf, during pendency of this appeal the execution of
custodial part of the jail sentence of the appellant No.2 Rupesh shall remain
suspended till final disposal of this appeal.
C.C. as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 30-06-2023
18:55:04
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 30-06-2023
18:55:04
