Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra @ Jittu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 12002 of 2023
(JITENDRA @ JITTU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 30-11-2023
Shri B. S. Thakur - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Prasanjeet Chatterjee - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Reserved on : 28.11.2023
Pronounced on : 30.11.2023
Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.
Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A No.22519/2023, which is first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of the appellant.
The appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under
Section 327 (on two counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years
with a fine of Rs.2,500/-, with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the jail sentence of
appellant was suspended by the trial court till 11.10.2023 (as mentioned in the
application). Thereafter, this court vide order dated 26.09.2023 has extended
the period of bail of appellant from 11.10.2023 to 11.12.2023. The maximum jail
sentence of appellant is of two years and he was on bail during trial and did not
misuse the liberty granted to him and also the appeal would take considerable
time to conclude. He is 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.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and pray for
its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and
record of the court below.
The application for suspension of sentence has been argued on the
ground that there has been serious contradictions in the testimony of
prosecution witnesses and no grievous injury was caused to the complainant;
the appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty, therefore
it is prayed that the sentence be suspended till the decision of this appeal.
I have heard the arguments in the light of evidence available on record of
the trial court.
The prosecution case is duly supported by the statements of injured
complainant Krishna Kant (P.W.1) and another injured Nitin Soni (P.W.2).
Further, eyewitness Sachin Raghuvanshi (P.W.3) has also supported the
prosecution case. Although two witnesses, namely Raju (P.W.5) and Rupesh
(P.W.6), were hostile regarding the proceedings of arrest memorandum,
statements and seizure but no material contradiction regarding the episode of
assault could be highlighted in the statements of injured persons and the
eyewitness. The injury caused to Krishna Kant was found to be grievous and
for this, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Smt. (Dr.) Rekha Singh
(P.W.4) and Dr. Manoj Mehar (P.W.9). Merely accepting the suggestion by
medical officer that the injury could have been caused in an accident, it cannot
be concluded that the injuries were not the result of any assault but were caused
in an accident. Incidentally, no defence witness was examined on behalf of
appellant. Even the plea of false implication on the ground of earlier enmity has
not been established through documents.
Having considered all these aspects, the application for suspension of
sentence is dismissed.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2023.12.01 14:39:16 +05'30'
