Harinarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 21136 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Harinarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2024

Author: Sunita Yadav

Bench: Sunita Yadav

                                                            1                            CRA-10803-2022
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                    CRA No. 10803 of 2022
                                      (HARINARAYAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                         Dated : 05-08-2024
                               Mr. Amit Lahoti - Advocate for the appellant.

                               Mr. Dinesh Savita - Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State.

The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing. Heard on I.A. No.12365/2023 , an application for staying the impugned judgment of conviction on behalf of appellant No. 2 - Shishupal.

Present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.11.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District - Guna (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.53/2014, whereby appellant No.2 - Shishupal has been convicted under Sections 148, 450 (four counts), 435/149 (two counts), 427/149 (two counts), 323/149 (six counts), 342/149 (two counts) and 397 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo maximum imprisonment of seven years with maximum fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant has wrongly

been convicted by the trial Court without appreciating the materials available on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. It is further argued that the appellant is a govt. teacher. His jail sentence has already been suspended by order dated 11.5.2023, however, due to conviction, he is not allowed to join his duty. Hearing of the appeal will take time and if in the meantime, his conviction is

2 CRA-10803-2022 not stayed, he will suffer irreparable loss. Hence, prayed that aforesaid application may kindly be allowed and conviction of appellant No. 2 - Shishupal may kindly be stayed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record. The perusal of record indicates that this is a case of direct evidence and named FIR was lodged against the appellant levelling specific allegations against him. Prosecution witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. In this case multiple persons have received injuries. Learned trial Court after detailed appreciation of evidence convicted the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant prima facie failed to prove that the

conviction of the appellant is illegal or against the record, therefore, this is not a fit case for staying the judgment of conviction.

Accordingly, I.A. No.12365/2023 is hereby dismissed . List the case in due course.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE

AKS