Omprakash Sonkiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15028 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 8622 of 2023 (OMPRAKASH SONKIYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 12-09-2023 Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri B. K. Upadhyay - Deputy Government Advocate for the State.

Heard on admission.

The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing. Also heard on I.A No.16023/2023, which is first application under

Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the appellants.

Each of the appellants has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.3,000/-, with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the jail sentence of appellants was suspended by the trial court till 22.7.2023 as mentioned in the

application. Thereafter, this court vide order dated 12.7.2023 has extended the period of bail of appellants from 22.7.2023 to 22.9.2023. The maximum jail sentence of appellants is of two years. They were on bail during trial and they d id not misuse the liberty granted to them. Also, the appeal would take considerable time to conclude. They are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and prays for its rejection.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and record of the court below.

This application for suspension of sentence has been argued on the ground that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants have been convicted in an arbitrary manner without there being any evidence available against them. It is also argued that the appellants never misused the liberty granted to them during trial.

The arguments submitted by the appellants have been considered. During trial, there was presumption of innocence in their favour but now they stand convicted for the offences of Sections 323/34 and 325/34 (on two counts) of IPC. The prosecution case is well supported with the evidence of three injured persons namely, Mahesh Prasad Chaturvedi (P.W.1), Pushpa Chaturvedi (P.W.2) and Vandana Chaturvedi (P.W.5). Despite lengthy cross-examination, their statements have substantiated the prosecution case and no material contradiction was highlighted through cross-examination. Their statements have been corroborated even by the medical evidence. The place of incident is proved to be the agricultural land belonging to the complainant which further shows that the appellants were the aggressors who caused simple and grievous injuries to the complainant side.

In the given circumstances of the case, the application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE ps

Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.09.14 14:39:53 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8