Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10884 OF 2022
(Ram and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 23.02.2024
Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Kamal Tiwari, counsel for the respondent/State.
_____________________________________________________
Heard on IA No.17589 of 2023 which is an application for
urgent hearing of suspension application.
(2) For the reasons stated in the application, the same is
allowed. IA No.17589 of 2023 stands disposed of.
(3) Also heard on IA No.17588 of 2023 which is first
application filed under Section 389 (1) of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, on behalf of appellant No.1 - Ram S/o Shri
Rajendra Rao who has been convicted by learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Khategaon, District-Dewas (MP) in
Session Trial No.127/2021 vide judgment dated 26.09.2022 and
has been sentenced him as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Section & Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in
Amount lieu of fine
302/34 IPC Life Rs.5000/- 03 months
Imprisonment Additional RI
341 IPC One month SI ......... .........
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10884 OF 2022
(Ram and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
(3) Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has
erred in holding the appellant guilty and he has been falsely
implicated in the offence. There is no evidence against the
appellant. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence
and there are so many contradictions and omissions in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that
prosecution witnesses PW-4 and PW-3 are star witnesses. PW-3
has not stated anything against the appellant in his court statement.
PW-4 who was with the deceased at the time of incident has also
not stated anything against the appellant in his court statement.
Even he has not identified the appellant in his court statement. The
eye witness PW-5 has turned hostile and not supported the
prosecution story. No any weapon has been seized from the
possession of the appellant. The appellant was on bail during trial
and he has not misuse the liberty granted to him and final hearing
of the appeal will take a long time, hence, keeping in view the
aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that the application for
suspension of sentence be allowed.
(4) Counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer for
grant of bail.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10884 OF 2022
(Ram and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
(5) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
(6) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well
as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties
and keeping in view the statements of PW-3 and PW-4, this Court
is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be released on bail.
Accordingly, application - I.A. No.17588 of 2023 is allowed.
(7) It is directed that substantive jail sentence of appellant No.1
- Ram S/o Shri Rajendra Rao shall be suspended subject to his
depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) and on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees
Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of concerned trial Court for his appearance on
24.04.2024 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
the Court concerned in this behalf. Accordingly, application IA
No.17588 of 2023 stands disposed of.
(8) Certified copy, as per Rules.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arun/-
