Madhya Pradesh High Court
Faiz @ Guddu Qureshis vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1735 of 2023
(FAIZ @ GUDDU QURESHIS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 04-05-2023
Shri Ravindranath Chaturvedi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A No. 8181 of 2023, an application under Section 389(1) of
the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant- Fiaz @
Guddu Qureshi arising out of judgment dated 9.5.2019 delivered in ST No. 91
of 2019 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen.
T he appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life with fine of Rs.1000/- with default
stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution story
on 14.4.1990 at around 11 o'clock a merge intimation was received regarding
death of Chhote @ Om Prakash Yadav from the district Hospital, Raisen.
Thereafter complainant - Deepak Malviya reached the Police Station at around
12 o'clock at night and lodged an oral report. The said report was reduced in
writing in the shape of FIR.
By taking this Court to the FIR, (Ex. P-1), learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the name of the present appellant does not find place in
the FIR. Subsequently, on the basis of case diary statement of Deepak Malviya
(PW-1), the present appellant was arraigned. However, Deepak Malviya in his
court statement did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile.
Yashpal Yadav (PW-3) claimed himself to be an eye witness and deposed that
the appellant was present alongwith other co- accused persons while assaulting
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 5/4/2023
4:44:40 PM
the deceased - Chhote @ Om Prakash. The statement of real brother of
deceased (PW-8) is relied upon wherein during cross- examination in (Para -
22), he clearly admitted that he has not witnessed the incident. ASI (P-15) who
claims that he was on duty at the scene of crime did not witness any assault by
the appellant. He has only seen that the appellant had fled away from the scene
of crime. Thus, the story of prosecution has no legs to stand. There is no legal
evidence on the strength of which the appellant was convicted by the Court
below. Apart from this, final hearing of this appeal will take time. thus, the
remaining of the appellant may be suspended.
Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer on the basis of
objection and submits that PW-3 is an eye witness.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any
conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A No. 8181 of 2023, is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant- Fiaz @ Guddu Qureshi is hereby
suspended and it is directed that the appellant 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 trial Court,
Raisen on 7th of August 2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed
by the trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 5/4/2023
4:44:40 PM
bks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 5/4/2023
4:44:40 PM
