Rampal Adivashi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 18352 MP

                                                              1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 10493 of 2022
                                       (RAMPAL ADIVASHI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 02-11-2023
                                 Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur - Advocate for appellant No.2 Ananti Bai

                          Adivashi.
                                 Shri Manu V. John - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.17250 of 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant no.2- Ananti Bai Adivashi arising out of judgment dated

29.10.2022 delivered in Sessions Trial No.52/2017 by Additional Sessions Judge Bareli, District Raisen (M.P.) is taken up.

This appellant no. 2 has been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

Shri Sourabh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant no.2 submits that this Court was kind enough in suspending the remaining jail sentence of appellant no.1-Rampal Adivashi. Initially, the name of present appellant and

Rampal Adivashi was not there as accused in the prosecution story. Subsequently, Netram Adivashi lodged a written report on 19.04.2017 (Annexure P/5) stating that the present appellant was also involved in the commission of crime. On this basis, which was clearly an afterthought, appellant was illegally roped in. Considering this aspect this Court was kind enough in suspending the remaining jail sentence of appellant 1 on 04.07.2023. Thus, on principle of parity, this appellant may be given benefit of suspension of sentence.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 11/2/2023 6:16:51 PM

Prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer on the basis of objection but he did not dispute the factum of parity.

This Court on 04.07.2023 recorded as under:-

"Learned counsel for the appellant no.1 submits that as per prosecution story, the father of deceased Netram Adivashi lodged a report on 10.10.2016 at around 12:40 O' clock in Police Station Udaipura that when he went to his agricultural field, his wife accused Ananti Bai was at home with his minor daughter Alpana. At around 10 O'clock when he came back to his home, Ananti Bai was not

there at home. Inside the house, Alpana was lying dead in a burnt condition. The death of Alpana was homicidal in nature.

After about six months, complainant Netram Adivashi lodged another written application on 19.04.2017 (Exhibit P/5) stating that the appellant was also involved in the commission of crime. Learned counsel for the appellant by taking this Court to Para - 40 of the impugned judgment submits that the Court below clearly opined that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. The eye witnesses have turned hostile. Thereafter, in paragraph 40 and paragraph 60 and 61 the Court below gave an ambiguous finding that appellant is guilty. The said finding is based on so called last scene theory. However, the Court below has not taken pains to give a finding as to who is the said prosecution witness who had last seen the appellant with the deceased. The finding of Court below is based on memorandum statement of appellant recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The said statement in toto is not admissible because same is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 11/2/2023 6:16:51 PM

taken in police custody. If the entire statement is taken into account to hold the appellant as guilty, it runs contrary to Sections 25 & 26 of Indian Evidence Act. The finding of Court below is based on surmises and conjunctures. In absence of any clinching evidence, the conviction deserves to be interfered with.

Final hearing of this matter is not possible in near future. Thus, remaining jail sentence of appellant no.1 may be suspended.

Learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on the basis of objection.

We have heard the parties at length and perused the record. Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant no. 1.

Accordingly, I.A. Nos.6759 of 2023 is allowed."

Applying the principles of parity we deem it proper to give similar treatment to this appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.17250 of 2023 is allowed. Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the

remaining jail sentence of appellant no.2- Ananti Bai Adivashi is hereby suspended and it is directed that this appellant no.1 be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court Bareli, District Raisen on 04.12.2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 11/2/2023 6:16:51 PM

by the trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

List for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

                               (SUJOY PAUL)                                  (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
                                  JUDGE                                             JUDGE

                          pb




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 11/2/2023
6:16:51 PM