Madhya Pradesh High Court
Icchashankar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 CRA-7350-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7350 of 2022
(ICCHASHANKAR SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 01-08-2024
Mr. Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the respondent -
State.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission of this Court to
withdraw I.A.No.10325/2024, first application under Section 389 (1)
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf
of appellant No.2 Chandra Prakash Sharma, who is husband of the deceased.
2. Accordingly, I.A.No.10325/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Heard on I.A.No.9883/2024, second application under Section 389
(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf
of appellant No.1 - Icchashankar Sharma.
4. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to suffer RI for 04 months, vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 06.08.2022 passed by Fourth
Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Trial
No.104/2018.
5. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.11.2017 accused
Chandra Prakash Sharma lodged an oral report that his wife Renu committed
suicide by firing gunshot. During investigation, it was found that two
2 CRA-7350-2022
gunshots were fired, therefore, it is a case of murder. The police registered an
FIR against husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and one Guruji who used
to visit in the said house. However, mother-in-law and Guruji are
absconding. These two appellants have been arrested by the police and
prosecuted under Section 302/34 of IPC. Counsel for the appellants submits
that the offence has been committed by licensed gun of Icchashankar Sharma
(father-in-law) and there is evidence that he used to reside in the field not in
the house. The husband has failed to give proper explanation about the cause
of death.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants while taking exception to the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, submits that the
Court has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct
perspective. The judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures. It is further
submitted that the appeal being of 2024 is not likely to be decided in the near
future. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the appellant No.1
may be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent/State opposes the prayer by submitting that looking to the nature
of offence, present appellant is not entitled for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, coupled with the
fact that final conclusion of the appeal will take considerable long time, but
without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof, we deem it proper to
3 CRA-7350-2022
suspend the remaining jail sentence of the present appellant No.1.
9. Accordingly, the I.A. is allowed and the execution of remaining
jail sentence of appellant No.1 Icchashankar Sharma is hereby suspended till
the final disposal of this appeal and it is ordered that the appellant be released
on bail on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and upon
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only)
with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court, with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on
25.09.2024 and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry of this
Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
10. Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
bj/-
