Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok @ Lala vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 October, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 5513 of 2023
(ASHOK @ LALA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 12-10-2023
Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.C. Gangare,
learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri K. K. Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Heard on I.A.No. 12882/2023, which is first application filed under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence of appellant No.5-Sanjay who
stands convicted vide judgment dated 27.03.2023 passed by the First Additional
Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch (MP) in Session Trial No. 100102/2015
for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and default
stipulations.
2. The prosecution case found to be proved is that 15.08.2015 deceased
Ganesh along with the appellant and other co-accused persons had gone to the hutment
(dera) of one Sunderbai (PW-5) for consuming liquor. Some dispute arose and the
accused persons assaulted the deceased Ganesh. Thereafter, they went to Sarsi Road
where again he was beaten and co-accused Pankaj, Ashok, Vishnu and Karu assaulted
with stone on his head due to which he died and his body was thrown on the road to
show that it was an accident.
3 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant No.5 has been
falsely implicated in the case. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is neither
any evidence of last nor any eye witness to the incident. In all, 10 accused persons have
been implicated in the case and convicted solely on the basis of statement of Sampatlal
(PW-2) and Sunderbai (PW-5). Sampatlal (PW-2) is the father of the deceased Ganesh
who specifically stated that he has not seen the incident but all the 10 accused persons
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
10/13/2023 4:38:56 PM
2
used to live with the deceased. Sunderbai (PW-5) who is the owner of the hutment
(dera) where initially the incident took place, also turned hostile. Learned counsel for
the appellants further contended that the appellants cannot be convicted solely on the
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. There is no evidence at all on the
basis of which it could be said that the accused had actually committed the crime. The
chain of evidence is not complete. Final disposal of this appeal will take considerable
time. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is prayed that the jail sentence of appellant
No.5 be suspended and he be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer for
suspension of jail sentence and prayed for its rejection.
5. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A.No. 12882/2023 is allowed and it is
directed that upon depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) and on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the substantive jail sentence of the
appellant No.5-Sanjay s/o Rajkumar Rathore shall remain suspended till the final
disposal of the appeal and he shall be released on bail. He shall appear before the
concerned trial Court firstly on 21.12.2023 and on all other subsequent dates, as may
be fixed in this behalf by that Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
10/13/2023 4:38:56 PM
