Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeeva vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
CRA No. 2629/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH INDORE
BEFORE DIVISION BENCH OF HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK
RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
CRA No. 2629 of 2021
(JEEVA. V/S. STATE OF M.P.)
Date: 03.05.2023 :
Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Amit Rawal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.11142/2022, first application filed u/s. 389(1)
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant -
Jeeva.
The appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 18.1.2021
passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.
1166/2012 u/s. 120-B, 396, 412 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment and 10 years' RI respectively with default
stipulation.
As per prosecution story, certain persons entered the house of
complainant Saranjeet Chhabra and assaulted her husband Jasbir
Singh. Thereafter valuable ornaments and articles were taken away by
those persons. Later on in a TIP, the stolen materials were identified
by complainant Saranjeet Chhabra.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present
appellant was arrested after 4 years of the incidence. Only a golden
chain and a pendant has been recovered from the possession of the
appellant. In the FIR and entire challan papers, even name of this
- : 2 :-
CRA No. 2629/2021
appellant was not taken by anybody. At a later point of time, on the
basis of a memorandum prepared under Section 27 of Indian Evidence
Act, the appellant is arraigned. He read out the memorandum to
contend that even if the story of the facts narrated in this
memorandum are taken to be true on its face value, at best it can be
said that some of the stolen material was found in the possession of
the appellant. In this memorandum, there is no iota of allegation that
this appellant was part of any conspiracy. There is no other
material/evidence produced during trial which connects the appellant
with story of conspiracy and attract Section 120(B) of IPC. No finger
prints of the present appellant were found and he was not identified.
The appellant 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.
In 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.
Accordingly, I.A. No.11142/2022 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 - Jeeva S/o. Shambhusingh Pardi 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
- : 3 :-
CRA No. 2629/2021
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 shall remain suspended till final disposal of this appeal. I.A.
No.2351/2023, an application for early hearing, stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
[ VIVEK RUSIA ] [ANIL VERMA]
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2023.05.03 19:15:10 +05'30'
