Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rampal Vishwakarma vs State Of M P on 2 November, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8218 of 2021
(RAMPAL VISHWAKARMA Vs STATE OF M P)
Dated : 02-11-2023
Shri Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha - Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Tulsa Koshta - Panel lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Appeal seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.15298/2022, which is the second application filed on
behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted under Sections 394, 397, 307/34 (two
counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years, 7 years and 10-10
years and fine of Rs.5000/-, Rs.2000/-, Rs.2000-2000/-,. Under Section 25(1-B)
(a) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.2000/-
with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He also submits that the trial Court
has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on
record and committed error in convicting the appellant for aforesaid offence.
The appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so
granted to him. The appeal would take considerable time to conclude. He is
read y to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and
conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the
application for suspension of sentence may be considered.
O n the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the
contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant and prayed for its rejection.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/4/2023
11:08:27 AM
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and
judgment of the Court below.
This is the repeat bail application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. The
earlier one was dismissed as withdrawn.
This application has been argued on the ground of parity claimed with the
case of co-convict Pankaj who was given the benefit of suspension of sentence
under CRA No.305/2022 but that order reveals that co-convict Pankaj served
more than seven years in custody and that was one of the major reason to allow
the application for suspension of sentence while the period of custody
undergone by the appellant is much less.
The application has been argued on the ground that FIR was lodged
against the unknown persons and on the basis of memorandum of co-accused,
the appellant was implicated in the case. Further, there was a delay in holding
the TIP and the testimony of prosecution witnesses failed to substantiate the
charges against the appellant. No doubt, the FIR was registered against the
unknown persons but during investigation the name of robbers were revealed. It
is not a case where appellant was punished only on the basis of memorandum
of co-accused but in this case, mobile phone of the victim and firearm along
with a live cartridge were recovered from the possession of applicant. It might
be a case where appellant did not shot any gunfire but common intention with
co-accused person is well established through the evidence. Delay in holding
the TIP or the claim about it being influenced by the police officers cannot be a
ground to reach to the opinion about the innocence of appellant. He was duly
identified in the Court room by the victim and further there was a recovery of
looted item from the possession of appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Taking into consideration all these facts, the application for suspension
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/4/2023
11:08:27 AM
of sentence is dismissed.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
DevS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/4/2023
11:08:27 AM
