Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Dwivedi vs The Statae Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2024
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 15780 of 2023
(SANTOSH DWIVEDI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
CRA/15926/2023, CRA/16018/2023
Dated : 19-02-2024
Shri Bhupendra Shukla - Advocate for appellants in Cr.A. No.
15780/2023.
Shri Ravi Dwivedi - Advocate for appellants in Cr.A. No. 15926/2023.
Shri Shreyas Pandit - Advocate for the appellants in Cr.A. No.
16018/2023.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A No. 29792/2023, an application under Section 389(1) of
the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants Santosh
Dwivedi and Manoj Dwivedi, I.A No. 30063/2023, an application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
appellants Sanjeev Dwivedi, Monu @ Pushpraj Dwivedi, I.A No.
2180/2024, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension
o f sentence and grant of bail to appellant Shriniwas Dwivedi, I.A No.
2190/2024, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension
o f sentence and grant of bail to appellant Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi,
arising out of judgment dated 06/12/2023 delivered in S.T. No.100248/2015 by
the XIth Sessions Judge, Rewa (MP).
These appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each with fine of Rs.2000/-each and
Sections 147 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 1 year each with fine
of Rs.1000/-each with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for these appellants submits that deceased was a person
aged more than 70 years and the postmortem examination was carried out by a
panel of three doctors and one of them was examined as PW/10. It has come in
the deposition of PW/10 that the cause of death is brain hemorrhage and there
was indication that deceased was suffering from high blood pressure. There is
no injury on the skull and three injuries were found on the body are on non vital
part and contusions and abrasions. Thus, the death of the deceased is not
homicidal in nature. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Punjab Vs. Bhajan
Singh & others 1975(4) SCC 472 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
as under:-
"13. We have heard Mr Sharma on behalf of the appellant State and are
of the opinion that no case has been made for interference with the
judgment of the High Court. There is no eyewitness of the occurrence
and the conviction of the accused is sought to be secured on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. We, however, find that the evidence which has
been adduced in this case is far from satisfactory and that it suffers from
a number of infirmities. In the first instance, there is no evidence on
record to show that the two dead bodies which are alleged to have been
recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement of Bhajan Singh were
those of Bachan Singh and Harbans Singh deceased. The evidence of Dr
Saluja is clear on the point that the features of the persons on whose
dead bodies the doctor performed post-mortem were unrecognisable.
Question then arises as to whether the death of the two persons whose
dead bodies were recovered was homicidal. So far as this aspect is
concerned, we find that Dr Saluja had deposed that he found no marks
of ligature on either of the two dead bodies. According further to the
doctor, he could not find the cause of death because the two dead bodies
were in a decomposed state. In the face of the above evidence of the
doctor, it is not possible to hold that the death of the two persons, whose
bodies were recovered was homicidal."
It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that two
eye witnesses of the case who are PW/11 and PW/2 but their statements during
the course of the investigation were taken after more than one year of the death
of the deceased. Thus, it is argued that the case of the present appellants stand
on weak footings. It is further stated that PW/11 who is wife of the deceased
stated to be eye witness has not named all the appellants and has taken the
names of two accused persons which renders the deposition of eye witnesses.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for appellants that appeal is
of the years 2023 and final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future.
Thus, remaining jail sentence of these appellants may be suspended.
Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer on the basis of
written objection. .
Considering the aforesaid factual matrix but without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case and also considering the fact that there is bleak
possibility of final hearing of this appeal, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of these appellants.
Accordingly, I.A No. 29792/2023, I.A No. 30063/2023, I.A No.
2180/2024 & I.A No. 2190/2024 are allowed and disposed of.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellants is hereby suspended and it is directed that
appellants- Santosh Dwivedi, Manoj Dwivedi, Sanjeev Dwivedi, Monu @
Pushpraj Dwivedi, Shriniwas Dwivedi & Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, be
released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to
appear before the trial Court, Rewa o n 25.04.2024 and also on such other
dates as may be fixed by the said Court in this regard during the pendency of
this Appeal.
C.c. as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE
MISHRA
