Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajesh 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. 8693 of 2022
(BRAJESH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 05-10-2023
Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajiv Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.13675 of 2023, which is the first application under
Section 389 of CrPC filed on behalf of appellant No.2- Patiram seeking
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant No.2 alongwith other accused persons stood convicted under
Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment
with fine of Rs.2000/- and under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2022 passed by Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial
No. 23/2006.
Appellant No.2 has already undergone jail sentence of about one and half
years.
Learned counsel for the appellants at the out set submits that it is a case
o f false implication. The trial court indeed has considered the evidence of
Radhakrishna Sharma (P.W.3), Kok Singh (P.W.4) and Ramjilal (P.W.6) in
para 27,28 and 30 to implicate the applicant on ocular evidence that the
appellant was part of unlawful assembly and assaulted the deceased along with
other co-accused persons with lathi and axe but there are omnibus allegations
against the present appellant and other co-accused persons and co-accused
Arjun Kevat and Pramod have already been extended benefit of suspension of
jail sentence. On such grounds, learned counsel prays for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2.
Per contra, Shri A.K.Nirankari, learned Counsel for the State opposes
t h e application supporting the impugned judgment and referring to
aforementioned paras 27,28 and 30, he submits that appellant's name and act
are clearly spelled out from the evidence of the witnesses named in such
paragraphs, therefore, complicity of the appellant can not be ruled out in the
matter of suspension of sentence. On such grounds, he prays for dismissal of
the application.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting on rival contentions touching merits of the case, but in the
obtaining facts and circumstances, we are of the view that case of appellant
No.2 deserves to be and is accordingly extended the benefit of suspension of
sentence.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant No.2 - Pati
Ram shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Appellant No.4 Pati Ram is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court first on 07.12.2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
Office in this behalf.
Accordingly, IA No. 13675/2023 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) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
yog
YOGESH
VERMA
2023.10.06
13:17:06
+05'30'
