Salim vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16188 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 8965 of 2023 (SALIM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 03-10-2023 Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Sandeep Kumar Dubey - Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Ram Narayan Shah - Advocate for the objector.

Heard on the question of admission.

The appeal being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on I.A. No.16750/2023, which is first application filed on behalf of the appellants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellants has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 148 o f IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs.200/-, Section 452 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs.300/-, Section 323 (vertex three) read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months (separate in each vertex) with fine of Rs.1,500/- and Section 325 (vertex two) read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years (separate in each vertex) with fine of

Rs.1,500/- , respectively, with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and committed error in convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offences. He further submits that appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions, omissions and embellishments in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He also submits that appellants were on bail during trial but they did not misuse the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHARAN JEET KAUR Signing time: 10/4/2023 4:03:55 PM

liberty granted to them. Appellants are in custody and final disposal of this appeal will take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the custodial sentence of the appellants may be suspended and they may be released on bail.

O n the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and judgment of the Court below.

The case of the prosecution is that the appellants entered the house of the complainant side, they were carrying deadly weapons, used these weapons and caused injuries to 5 persons. It has been argued on the application for

suspension of sentence that the complainant side has also been convicted in a cross case i.e., S.T. No.78/2018. The judgment passed therein is filed on record which shows that from the complainant side 4 persons were convicted for the offence under Section 323 (323/34) of IPC. The prosecution case appears to be duly proved by victims Smt. Razia (PW/1), Smt. Aneesa (PW/2), Sajid Ali (PW/3), Abrar Ali (PW/4) and Sakir Ali (PW/5).

In the light of testimonies of these witnesses and also in consideration of fact that the appellants arrived at the house of complainant side and caused injuries to five persons, out of which 2 sustained grievous injuries, under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellants.

Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed. List for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHARAN JEET KAUR Signing time: 10/4/2023 4:03:55 PM

sjk

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHARAN JEET KAUR Signing time: 10/4/2023 4:03:55 PM