Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankar Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 November, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11920 of 2022
(SHANKAR UIKEY AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 21-11-2023
Shri A. K. Chakravarti - Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Priti Singh - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Ms. Sandhya Devi - Advocate for the objector.
Reserved on : 09.11.2023
Pronounced on : 21.11.2023
Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.
Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
ORDER
Heard on I.A No.24098/2022, which is first application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf
of appellants.
Appellant no.1 has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 323/34 and 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months
and R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-, respectively, with
default stipulations. Appellant no.2 has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 323/34 and 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 3 months and R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-,
respectively, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are
innocent and have 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 appellants for
aforesaid offences. The appellants are in custody and the appeal would take
considerable time to conclude. They are ready 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.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for
the objector have opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned respective counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This application for suspension of sentence, marked as I.A.
No.24098/2022, has been argued on the ground that a compromise has been
arrived at between the parties and the same is placed on record and is also
verified by the Registry of this Court. According to prosecution, appellants
attempted murder of Sunderlal and caused injuries to his minor granddaughter
Anshul. A compromise application and also the statement of complainant
confirming the fact of compromise are available on record.
Taking these facts into consideration, the application for suspension of
sentence is allowed It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if
n o t already deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the
custodial sentence of the appellants shall remain suspended and they shall be
released on bail for securing their presence before the trial Court concerned on
11.01.2024 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard during
pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. No.24098/2022 stands allowed and
disposed of.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2023.11.22 13:08:18 +05'30'
