Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 15690 of 2023
(MOHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 09-02-2024
Shri Siddharth Jain, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Gaurav Singh Chouhan, Dy. Government Advocate for the State.
Heard on I.A.No. 1071/2024, application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
As per the office report, the appeal is time barred by 227 days.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in
filing the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A.No. 1071/2024 stands disposed of.
Appeal seems to be arguable, hence admitted for hearing.
Heard on I.A.No. 1800/2024, which is first application under Section
389(1) filed by the appellant-Mohan for suspension of sentence.
2. Appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 03.03.2023 passed
by the First Additional Session Judge, District Dhar (MP) in ST No. 120/2018
and sentenced as under :
Section 302 of IPC - Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-
Section 392 of IPC - RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1500/-
Section 460 of IPC - RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1500/-
(with default stipulations)
3 . The prosecution case found to be proved is that on 18.08.2018
complainant Devilal who was working as a supervisor at trenching ground, Dhar
went there and saw that the shutter of the trenching ground was closed and the
watchman Rajesh was not to be found. He called Rajesh, but he did not pick
the call. When the shutter of the trenching ground was opened, watchman
Rajesh was lying dead on his chair. Thereafter, complaint was registered.
During investigation the appellant and co-accused persons were arrested and
based on recovery of some looted articles, they were implicated in the case.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the case. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and the
chain is not complete. There is no last seen witness and eye-witness to the
incident. He further submits that the only evidence against him is the seizure of
articles and therefore, as per the Apex Court in case of Tulesh Kumar Sahu
vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228, it is not safe to draw the
inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the
murderer. The appeal is of the year 2023 and final disposal will take
considerable time. Further, the co-accused Inder @ Indu has been granted bail
by this Court in CRA No. 5087/2023 vide order dated 17.10.2023. Hence, it is
prayed that on the ground of parity, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant
be suspended and he be released on bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the
application and submits that it is a case of pre-meditated common intention.
Appellant has put in only five years of incarceration as against life
imprisonment. Hence, he prays for rejection of the application.
6 . On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case
and on the ground of parity, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, I.A.No. 1800/2024 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/- (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 - Mohan s/o Kishan Dabar 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 22.04.2024 and on all other subsequent
dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by that Court.
I.A.No. 1800/2024 stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
