Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tinku @ Anil Sharma 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. 8570 of 2018
(TINKU @ ANIL SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 05-10-2023
Shri Pradeep Katare - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Sushant Tiwari- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No. 8941 of 2020, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant- Tinku alias Anil Sharma.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation
vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.10.2018 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court No.3 (Electricity Act), Gwalior in
Sessions Trial No.27/2016.
The present appellant so far has undergone jail sentence of 5 years and
10 month 26 days without remission and 8 years 1 month 29 days in terms of
the report dated 27.09.2023 received from Central Jail, Gwalior.
As per prosecution story, a complaint was lodged by one Rajendra
Sharma, registered at Crime No. 315/2015, on allegation that his Uncle Laxmi
Narayan Sharma (since deceased) had been performing Pula of God Hanumanji
in Satyanarayan Ki Tekri, Gwalior. On fateful day, i.e., 23.05.2015 appellant
Tinku Sharma came to the temple and wrapped himself with a Gamcha for
performing Puja. Deceased Laxmi Narayan had taken exception to his such act
and conduct, to which Tinku Sharma had thrown stone on the head of
deceased Laxmi Narayan Sharma. As a result, he suffered grievous injuries,
blood started oozing out. Consequently, due to injuries and successive bleeding
Laxmi Narayan Sharma died homicidal death. After completion of investigation,
collection of relevant material and recording of evidence, the challan was filed.
The case was committed to the trial Court. The Sessions Court upon critical
evaluation of the evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the
present appellant as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment inter alia submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been
implicated. Even if the prosecution story is accepted on its face value, at the
most it could be a case of 304 part II of IPC and not of the murder under
Section 302 of IPC. The appellant has already suffered incarceration of 5 years
and 10 month 26 days. Appeal is of the year 2180 and there is no likelihood of
the early disposal of the appeal in the near future. Under such circumstances,
learned counsel for the appellant prays that benefit of suspension of sentence
may be extended to present appellant.
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 the rival contentions so advanced touching the merits of
the case, but in the obtaining facts and circumstances we are of the view that
present appellant is entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant
of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.8941 of 2020 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of appellant Tinku alias Anil Sharma shall remain
suspended during pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on
bail subject to verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lacs 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.
Appellantk 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, the said IA 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
yog
YOGESH
VERMA
2023.10.06
13:16:16
+05'30'
