Mukesh @ Shyamsunder vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16909 MP

                                                                  1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT GWALIOR
                                                         CRA No. 12207 of 2023
                                             (MUKESH @ SHYAMSUNDER Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                            Dated : 11-10-2023
                                    Ms. Monica Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                    Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
                                    Heard on the question of admission.
                                    Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
                                    Heard on IA No.17714/2023, first application under Section 389 of
                            Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and

                            grant of bail.
                                    Appellant stands convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to
                            undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations vide
                            judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2023 passed by First
                            Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh District Morena (M.P.) in ST No.130 of
                            2018.
                                    Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment
                            passed by learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjecture and surmises.
                            The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the

                            present appellant without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. There
                            are material contractions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Applicant
                            has undergone judicial custody for almost two months during and trial and after
                            the judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the medical opinion
                            of Dr. Rewanand Sharma (PW-9) submits that no grievous injury much less a
                            life threatening injury was found on the body of injured Pawan. Learned counsel
                            further contends that as per the case of prosecution an altercation ensued
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 12-10-2023
01:04:39 PM
                                                                 2
                            between the parties with regard to charging lesser amount at flour mill and the
                            altercation converted into mutual fight between the appellant and injured.
                            Further, as the prosecution, appellant picked up a beer bottle which was lying
                            on the spot and after breaking it, caused injury near left ear of injured Pawan.
                            The injury was superficial. It itself shows that the injury was not pre-meditated
                            and the appellant has not acted in brutal manner. Thus, learned trial Court
                            committed an error in convicting the appellant under Section 307 of IPC.
                            Learned counsel further contends that except the injured none of the witness
                            have supported the case of prosecution. Learned trial Court committed an error
                            in appreciating the evidence of injured without considering the injuries caused to

                            the accused. The appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the
                            liberty so granted to him. Fine amount has already been deposited by the
                            appellant. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. On these
                            grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of
                            appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
                                  Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposed the

application and prayed for its rejection.

Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties but without commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 01.12.2023 and on further dates as may be Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 12-10-2023 01:04:39 PM

directed by the Registry in that regard.

Accordingly, I.A. No.17714/2023 stands allowed and disposed of. List the matter for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE

Vijay

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 12-10-2023 01:04:39 PM