Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 October, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 914 of 2015
(SURENDRA JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 05-10-2023
Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.K.Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A. No.16789 of 2023, which is fourth repeat application
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Surendra
Jatav.
This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 15/07/2015 passed by
Special Judge (Atrocities), Bhind in Sessions Trial No.72/2002 whereby
appellant- Surendra Jatav stands convicted and sentenced under Section 364-
A/34 of IPC for Life Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5000/- with default
stipulation.
Prosecution story, as found proved, is that on 05/01/2002 at about 10:30
in the night, when complainant Rajkumar Sharma alongwith his two brothers
namely Ramautar and Hukme and nephew Rajesh went for irrigation in his field,
five persons alongwith weapons in police dress came there and demanded
food. On refusal, they kidnapped complainant's brother Hukme and threatened
them to kill his brother Hukme, if they will tell anyone about the incident.
Complainant came back to his village and told about the incident to Surendra,
Naresh, Ramautar and Munna that Hukme was kidnapped and they demanded
ransom. On such information, FIR was registered. During investigation accused
was arrested and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and
the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court upon
critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record has convicted and
sentenced the appellant as referred above.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the impugned
judgment is based on surmises and conjectures and suffers from vice of
perversity. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of
prosecution witnesses recorded during trial. Even otherwise, the present
appellant has already suffered jail incarceration of 10 years 6 months and 27
days without remission and 13 years 10 months 26 days with remission. Hence,
learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant
primarily on the ground of long jail incarceration.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the impugned judgment submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, but keeping in view the long period of jail incarceration suffered by the
appellant, in our opinion, the appellant is held entitled for extension of benefit of
suspension of jail sentence.
Accordingly, we allow the application and it is directed that the jail
sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of present appeal
and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to verification of factum
regarding deposit of fine amount. Appellant is directed to appear before the
Registry of this Court first on 07/12/2023 and on other subsequent dates as
may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, I.A. No.16789 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Pj'S/-
PRINCEE
BARAIYA
2023.10.06
12:50:44 +05'30'
