Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prashant Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2024
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7675 of 2019
(PRASHANT MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 16-02-2024
Shri Imtiaz Hussain - Senior Counsel with Shri Sajid Khan, Advocate
for the appellant/applicant.
Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Considered I.A.No.1018/2024, which is third application under section
389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of appellant-Prashant Mishra.
First application being I.A.No.16921/2019 and second application
(I.A.No.5628/2021) have been dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated
05.2.2020 and 06.8.2021 respectively.
Vide impugned judgment dated 26.8.2019 passed by the Special Judge
(SC/ST), Seoni in SCATR No.11/2016 the appellant/applicant has been
convicted for offences under sections 302 r/w 34 & 449 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life & R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Rs.5,000/- & Rs.2,000/- respectively with default stipulations.
As per prosecution story the allegations against the appellant/applicant is
that he alongwith other co-accused persons entered into the house of deceased-
Balram and gave vital blow on his head as a result of which he died on the spot.
Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The
investigation is not of sterling quality. The learned trial Court has not properly
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The
prosecution witnesses viz. PW-1, 3, 4,5,8, 9 & 11 have not supported the
prosecution story and have been declared hostile. The spot of the incident is
doubtful. Even the alleged eye witness stated that he did not recognize the
assailants. The prosecution story is based on singular testimony of
complainant-PW.1 which cannot be placed reliance upon. The panchnama of
dead body was not prepared at the spot and dead body was removed to
mortuary. There are contradictions and omissions in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses. The medical evidence also does not support the
prosecution story. The alleged incident is over trivial issue regarding of mobile
as per paragraph 109 of the impugned judgment. The appellant is in custody
since 12.12.2015 and has completed 08 years of actual imprisonment without
remission. The appellant has no criminal past. There is no likelihood of early
final disposal of this appeal. The co-accused persons have been granted to file
fresh application for suspension of sentence after completing 08 years of
imprisonment. The case of present appellant is similar to role of accused
person. Hence, prayer has been made to suspend the jail sentence of appellant.
Learned Government Advocate has strongly opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail. However, could not dispute the
period of custody served by the appellant which is more than 08 years
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also
the impugned judgment.
Considering the over all facts and circumstances, incident arise from a
trivial issue of mobile, the custody period of appellant/applicant as he is in
custody since 12.12.2015 i.e. for more 08 years, liberty was granted by this
Court to co-accused to file fresh application for suspension of sentence after 08
years vide order dated 04.5.2023 passed in connected Criminal Appeal
7977/2019 [Pradeep Vs. State of M.P.], final disposal of this appeal would take
considerable time, this Court thinks it proper to allow the instant interlocutory
application for suspension of sentence and grant bail to appellant-Prashant
Mishra, mainly taking into account the custody period of appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1018/2024 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant/applicant-Prashant Mishra is hereby
suspended and it is directed that appellant be released on bail on his furnishing
a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
with a further direction to remain present before the concerning Trial Court,
Seoni on 13th of May 2024 and on such other dates as fixed by the trial
court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.C as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
