Madhya Pradesh High Court
Upendra Kumar @ Kaliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-717-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 717 of 2017
(UPENDRA KUMAR @ KALIYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 02-08-2024
Ms. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned G.A. for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.6647/2024, which is first application under Section
389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant No.2 -
Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Bhukta.
2. The appellant No.2 stands convicted by the judgment dated
04.03.2017, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar(M.P.)
in S.T. No.1300207/2016 for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and
sentenced to Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation.
3. As per prosecution story, on 24.03.2016 on the basis of information
of Bacchu Singh(PW1) at Police Station - Pithampur, merg was registered
and according to merg information, next to Shivangi Company, in an open
place of Paraspuriya Company ground, Pithampur one unknown dead body
was found. Thereafter, the police party reached the spot and seized the cloth.
button, mobile etc. and registered the offence at Crime No.88/16 under
Section 302 of IPC against unknown person and investigation was
commenced. Thereafter, the appellant(s) was arrested.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant
is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the offence. The allegation
2 CRA-717-2017
against appellant No.2 is of last seen. He further submitted that nobody has
seen that appellant No.2 had caused death of Dharmendra. There is no eye-
witness to the incident. There was neither any intention nor any motive to
cause death of deceased by the appellant No.2. There are material omissions
and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. Dr.
Shushma Boriwal (PW15), who has conducted the postmortem report has
clearly stated in her deposition that all the injuries which is found on the
deceased body is caused in accident. Mohan Singh(PW3) and
Nirmala(PW13), who is father and mother of deceased are interested
witnesses. The co-accused Upendra Kumar has already been granted bail
vide order dated 30.11.2023. The prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that this appeal is of the year
2017 and final disposal of this appeal will take considerable time. However,
it is prayed that the substantive jail sentence of the appellant No.2 be
suspended and he be released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State
has opposed the prayer and prays for rejection of the application.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and
in absence of any substantive evidence available on record coupled with the
fact that final hearing of this appeal will take considerable long time, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I.A.No.6647/2024 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/-
3 CRA-717-2017
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial court, the substantive jail sentence of appellant
No.2 - Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Bhukta shall remain suspended till final
disposal of the appeal and he shall be released on bail. He shall appear before
the concerned trial Court firstly on 23.10.2024 and on all other subsequent
dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by that Court.
Consequently, I.A.No.6648/2024 for urgent hearing also stands
disposed off.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
