Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gabru @ Aman @ Chottu Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8006 of 2021
(GABRU @ AMAN @ CHOTTU THAKUR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 26-09-2023
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Saurabh Shukla - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Reserved on : 20.09.2023
Pronounced on : 26.09.2023
Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.
Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
ORDER
Heard on I.A No.722/2023, which is second application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf
of the appellant. His first application being I.A. No.472/2022 was dismissed as
withdrawn.
The appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section
307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.200/-,
with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He also submits that the trial Court
has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on
record and committed error in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid
offence. Appellant is in custody and the appeal would take considerable time to
conclude. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the
directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 9/27/2023
3:56:03 PM
prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This application for suspension of sentence has been argued on the
ground that a substantial period of sentence has already been undergone by
appellant Gabru @ Aman @ Chottu Thakur and for this the judgments passed
in State of M.P. vs. Udham & others (2019)10 SCC 300, Kan Singh Sardar
vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. 7017/2021)and Pappu Malviya vs. State of M.P.
(Cr.A. No.8767/2023) have been relied upon. In the present case, the appellant
is convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC for being the main
assailant and in the assault four stab/incised wounds including a grievous one,
which was dangerous to life were caused to the complainant with a double
edged knife. Taking these facts into consideration, the period of custody of
about 2 years and 3 months cannot be described to be sufficient period as
compared to the punishment awarded by the trial Court.
Another aspect on which the application has been argued is that no
independent witness has supported the prosecution case and even the person,
who was allegedly accompanying the complainant has appeared as defence
witness. It is also argued that appellant has a criminal history and was on
inimical terms with the appellant. Having considered these arguments, the
statements of complainant have been found to be stable and trustworthy. If he
was having enmity with other persons, there appears no reason that he would
have named a wrong person in this crime. Further, the alleged enmity between
two parties does not appear to be of any gravity, more particularly for the
reason that it was related to an incident of about 2 years ago from this assault.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 9/27/2023
3:56:03 PM
Thus, enmity does not appear be a reason to falsely implicate the appellant in
this case.
On the basis of above observation, the application for suspension of
sentence is dismissed. So far as the argument regarding delay in decision of
appeal is concerned, that can be redressed by listing the matter for final hearing
at a proximate date.
Hence, list the matter for final hearing after six weeks.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
rv
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 9/27/2023
3:56:03 PM
