Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanju @ Sanjay Tirpathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 4391 of 2022
(SANJU @ SANJAY TIRPATHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 13-02-2024
Shri Madan Singh - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Dilip Parihar - Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.
Record of the Court below is received.
Heard on I.A.No.2249/2023, which is an application under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the
impugned judgment dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Special Judge District
It is contended by the counsel that the present appellant has been
convicted on the allegations that he fired a gunshot as a result of which, injury
was sustained by injured Ram Prakash Patel (PW-2). Learned counsel for the
appellant while taking this Court to the testimony of Ram Prakash Patel (PW-2)
submitted that the injured failed to identify the present appellant and as per the
testimony of Ram Prakash Patel (PW-2), it is evident that the present appellant
was unknown to him. It is contended by the counsel that the testimony of Dr.
Amit Prakash Choudhary (PW-4) also reflects that he on the basis of
experience stated that the injury was as a result of gun shot. It is contended by
the counsel that there is no confirmed report to establish that the injury in
question was caused by firearm. Thus, counsel contends the allegations levelled
against the present appellant are unsustainable. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the present appellant has completed incarceration
of 2 years and 10 months as of now and with remission, the same is more than
4 years. Thus, it is contended by the counsel that in view of the order passed
by the Apex Court in the case of Vishnubhai Ganpatbhai Patel and Anr. vs.
Sate of Gujarat (CRA No.3415/2023), the present application deserves to be
allowed inasmuch as, with the remission the present appellant has also
completed almost 40% of the sentence.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer
and submitted that as per the testimony of Ram Prakash Patel (PW-2) as well
as Dr. Amit Prakash Choudhary (PW-4) , it is evident that the injury was caused
by the present appellant by firearm. It is further contended by the counsel that
there is a FSL report which also makes it clear that hole on the shirt and
baniyan of the injured were caused by gunshot and the gunshot powder was
found around the hole. It is therefore, contended by the counsel that taking into
consideration the specific allegations levelled against the present appellant, the
application deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the submissions and perused the record.
In the present case, the present appellant has been convicted on the
allegation of firing gunshot injury. The injury was sustained by injured Ram
Prakash Patel (PW-2) who has stated that the gunshot injury was caused by the
present appellant. As per Dr. Amit Prakash Choudhary (PW-4), also the injury
was gunshot injury and as per FSL report also, on the clothes of injured gun
powder marks were found as well as gunshot hole was also found.
Therefore, taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstance and also
the fact that as of now the appellant has not completed 40% of sentence in
terms of the order passed by Apex Court in the case of Vishnubhai
Ganpatbhai Patel (supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain this
application and the same stands rejected while extending liberty to the appellant
to move an application afresh after suffering the actual period of incarceration in
terms of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Vishnubhai
Ganpatbhai Patel (supra).
Accordingly, IA No.2249/2023 stands rejected.
The appeal has already been admitted for final hearing, so it be listed for
final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
mn
