Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalu @ Karansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 8002 of 2023
(KALU @ KARANSINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-02-2024
Ms. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Vinay Puranik, learned counsel for the Respondent [OBJ].
Heard on I.A.No.18830/2023, which is first application under Section
389 for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant-Kalu @ Karansingh.
2 . The appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 31.05.2023
passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sendhwa, District Badwani
(MP) in Session Trial No. 69/2019 for offence punishable under Sections
302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1,000/-; under Section 302/120-B of IPC sentenced to Life Imprisonment
with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section 148 of IPC sentenced to undergo RI
for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
3 . The prosecution case found to be proved is that on 20.01.2019, a
complaint was lodged to the effect that the deceased Manoj Thakur, as per daily
routine, had gone for a walk on Kermala Road. After some time, he was found
dead near Rahuf's plots where houses were under construction. On the basis of
the aforesaid, crime was registered.
4 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been
falsely implicated in the case. This is a case of circumstantial evidence but the
chain is not complete. Present appellant has been implicated only on the basis
of a CDR which is not even in the proximity with the commission of crime. No
role has been attributed the present appellant. There was no eye-witness or last
seen witness to the incident. No seizure has been made from the possession of
the appellant. Name of the appellant does not find place in the dehati nalishi or
the FIR. It was only by way of an improvement that the present appellant has
been implicated in the crime. There was no motive for the present appellant to
commit the aforesaid crime. He further submitted that application for
suspension of sentence of main co-accused Tarachand has been allowed by
this Court vide order dated 11.10.2023, passed in Cri.A. No.8533/2023. Final
disposal of this appeal will take considerable time. Therefore, in such
circumstances, it is prayed that the jail sentence of appellant be suspended and
he be released on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State as well as learned counsel
for the objector opposes the prayer for suspension of jail sentence and prays
for its rejection.
6 . On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A.No. 18830/2023 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/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial court, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant -
Kalu @ Karansingh shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the appeal
and he shall be released on bail. He shall appear before the concerned trial
Court firstly on 10.04.2024 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed
in this behalf by that Court.
Consequently, I.A. No.18831/2023 for urgent hearing also stands
disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
