Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sarvesh Agnihotari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 3923 of 2022
(SARVESH AGNIHOTARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-02-2024
Shri Praveen Kumar Mishra- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Kaushlendra Singh- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A. No.22367 of 2023, which is first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Sarvesh Agnihotri for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant- Sarvesh Agnihotri stood convicted under Sections 302,
394/397, 307(1)/34 IPC and under Section 13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, RI for seven years
with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, RI for seven years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and RI for
three years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 31.12.2021 passed by Special Judge
(Dacoity) Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) in SC-DOCT/40/2015.
As per prosecution story, on 17.04.2010, complainant Deepu @ Deepak
lodged a complaint at Police Station Gohad to the effect that at about 11:15 he
along with his brother Sanjeev Gupta (deceased) on 17.04.2010 was coming on
motorcycle from the State Bank after withdrawal of the amount of
Rs.22,80,000/- for purchasing mustard from Mandi which was kept in two
bags. Motorcycle was being driven by his brother deceased Sanjeev and the
complainant while holding the bag was sitting as pillion rider. No sooner did
they reach near their house, since there occurred some mechanical defect in
their motorcycle he started going on foot to the house and thereafter the
deceased brother came on motorcycle as it could start. No sooner did he park
the motorcycle, three accused persons came from back on a black coloured
motorcycle, out of whom one accused who was wielding pistol threatened him
for dire consequences by putting the said pistol on his temple. When
complainant jerked, the assailant fired which went in air. At that time, two
assailants came from behind and fled away having snatched both the bags full
of currency notes. Sanjeev, brother of the complainant tried to chase and stop
the assailants. At that time, two accused were on motorcycle while the other
was fleeing on foot. When the accused who was on foot at once aimed by
means of pistol the complainant, he got scared. But when Sanjeev tried to
chase, the same assailant fired a gunshot to Sanjeev due to which he fell down
on the ground. When complainant due to fear came near his brother, his brother
was in unconscious state. He along with his nephew Manoj got his brother
Sanjeev to hospital where he was declared to be dead. On such allegations, FIR
was lodged.
During investigation, factum of the present robbery surfaced wherein six
accused persons including the present appellant were alleged to have been
involved for commission of offence of robbery and murder. After completion
of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The Special Court u p o n critical
evaluation of the evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the
present appellant as referred above.
Shri Praveen Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, while taking exception to the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, submits that the present appellant is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the matter. The presnt appellant has been roped in on the
basis of his memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In
fact, the eyewitnesses, namely, Deepak Gupta (PW-4), Babulal Gupta (PW-11),
Manoj Gupta (PW-12) and Sanjeev Gupta (PW-17) have not supported the
crux of the prosecution version and their evidence is in variance with the
prosecution story. There are material contradictions and omissions in their
evidence. Besides, there is no evidence on record to link the alleged recovery
made from the present appellant with the offence. Indeed, the prosecution has
not been able to prove the case against the present appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. That apart, similarly situated co-accused/appellant No.3, namely, Jaiveer
Gurjar and appellant No.2- Morari Gurjar have been extended the benefit of
suspension of sentence and grant of bail vide orders dated 15.09.2023 and
22.12.2023 respectively in Criminal Appeal No.1649 of 2022. This appeal is of
the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of final disposal of this appeal in the
near future, coupled with the fact that the present appellant has suffered
incarceration of more than two years.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
application supporting the impugned judgment.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, in the obtaining facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that instant
appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of final disposal of this
appeal in the near future, appellant- Sarvesh Agnihotri is held entitled to
extension of benefit of suspension of jail sentence.
Accordingly, we allow the application and it is directed that the jail
sentence of appellant- Sarvesh Agnihotri shall remain suspended during
pendency of present appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to
verification of factum regarding deposit of fine amount. Appellant- Sarvesh
Agnihotri i s directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
07.05.2024 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
pd
