Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 November, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 754 of 2016
(SUNIL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 21-11-2023
Shri Himanshu Joshi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.1631/2022 which is second application filed under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of appellant - Sunil S/o Bhagwan Singh.
Appellant's first application was dismissed in default vide order dated
09.10.2017.
2. Learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of
IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-
and further convicted him under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
05 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation vide judgement of
conviction and order of sentence dated 03.12.2015, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri District - Dhar(M.P.) in S.T. No.
244/2015.
3. The prosecution story found to be proved is that appellant himself has
lodged report to the effect that his son-in-law Mahendra was in the marriage of
his nephew till 12:00 midnight. While appellant was on his way to Indore at 4:00
a.m. in the morning, he got a call that his son-in-law Mahendra is dead and his
body is lying near Nasir's house. When he came back to Bagdipura , he found
his son-in-law lying dead having scratch marks on his body and some injury
marks on his neck.
4 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent
and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The conviction of the appellant is
based on circumstantial evidence. There is no last seen witness to the incident.
Merely on the basis of statement of PW-3 Ghanshyam who deposed that he
saw the deceased going towards the house of appellant between 12:00 to 1:00
a.m. in the night, appellant has been convicted. There is no material to show that
the deceased was last seen alongwith the appellant. Moreso, appellant has put in
more than 8 years and 06 months of jail incarceration. Final hearing of this
appeal is not possible in near future since the appeal is of the year 2016,
therefore, it is prayed that the remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be
suspended and he may be released on bail.
5 . On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State supported the judgment of conviction and prayed for rejection
of the application for suspension of sentence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the
fact that conviction is only based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of
circumstances is not complete coupled with the fact that final hearing of the
appeal will take long time in near future, without commenting on the merits of
the case, we are of the opinion that the jail sentence of appellant is liable to be
suspended.
8 . Accordingly, I.A.No.1631/2022 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court,
the execution of remaining custodial part of the sentence of the appellant -
Sunil shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.
9. The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his presence
before the trial Court on 22/12/2023 and thereafter on all such subsequent
dates, as may be fixed in this behalf.
10. List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
