Madhya Pradesh High Court
Firoz vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 September, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 933 of 2015
(FIROZ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 29-09-2023
Shri Gajendra Singh Dodia - Advocate for appellant.
Smt. Varsha Thakur - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.11880/2023, which is fourth application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence on
behalf of the sole appellant Firoj S/o Ishaq.
Appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 24/06/2015 passed in
S.T.No.319/2013 by I Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar (West Nimar)
under Sections 302/34, 366 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, 10 years RI
with fine of Rs.2,500/- and 05 years RI with fine of Rs.2,500/- respectively with
usual default stipulation.
As per the prosecution story, on 01/07/2013 a missing person report was
lodged by Manish (PW-3) at Police Chowki, Khamkheda, Station Kasrawad
about missing of a girl (Puja). During search, on 22/07/2013, he met Manoj,
Shivkumar and Gajendra, who stated that he saw Puja along with Firoz s/o
Ishaq and the present appellant (Shaharukh) on a motorcycle. On the basis of
the aforesaid, during investigation, present appellant and appellant of Criminal
Appeal No.833/2015 (Firoz s/o Bajeer) and Shahrukh were arrested. Their
memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act have been prepared in
which they stated the detail of the incident and on the basis of their
memorandum, skeleton of the deceased Puja was recovered on 22/07/2013.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/29/2023
6:01:30 PM
person and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Out of total three
accused persons, Firoz S/o Bajeer has been granted suspension of sentence.
Appellant has completed jail incarceration of more than 10 years. This is an old
appeal of the year 2015 and looking to old pendency of the cases for
consideration, final conclusion of this appeal would take sufficient long time.
The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. No other
incriminating material has been collected by the police to establish the presence
of the present appellant on the spot. Appellant has been acquitted from the
charge under Section 376(2)(G) of the IPC. At the time of incident appellant
was a young person of 21 years of age with no criminal past. So far as the
statement of witnesses is concerned, their statements were recorded after 22
days of the incident. There is a strong case in favour of the appellant. Hence,
the execution of the remaining part of the jail sentence of the appellant be
suspended till the final disposal of this appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the
application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection by submitting
that the trial Court after due consideration of the evidence available on record,
convicted the appellant. The skeleton of the deceased was recovered on the
basis of disclosure of the appellant. Hence, he is not entitled to grant benefit of
suspension of sentence.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the
allegation levelled against the appellant and also taking note of the fact that
appellant is languishing in jail since long and has completed more than 10 years
jail incarceration and final conclusion of the appeal will also take sufficient long
time. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/29/2023
6:01:30 PM
proper to suspend the remaining custodial sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.No.11880/2023 is allowed and it is directed subject to
deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, and subject to furnishing
personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of learned trial Court, the execution of remaining custodial part of the sentence
of the appellant shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his presence before
the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2023 and on all such subsequent dates,
which are fixed in this behalf.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/29/2023
6:01:30 PM
