Santosh @ Santu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5798 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Santosh @ Santu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024

Author: Chief Justice

Bench: Chief Justice

                                                              1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 14092 of 2023
                                            (SANTOSH @ SANTU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 26-02-2024
                                 Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for appellant.

                                 Shri Pramod Thakre - Public Prosecutor for respondent.

IA No.30538 of 2023 is the first application preferred under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C on behalf of appellant/accused Santosh @ Santu for suspension of execution of sentence and to enlarge the appellant on bail.

Appellant/accused Santosh @ Santu has been convicted under Sections 364, 302 read with Sections 34, 201 and 120 B of the IPC and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.700/-, under Section 201 for 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.300/- and under Section 364 for 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.300/- with default stipulations vide impugned judgment dated 06.10.2023 passed by First Additional Session Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.18 of 2022.

Prosecution case as found proved by the trial Court is that wife of d ec eas ed Santosh son of Mohan Thakur developed intimacy with

appellant/accused Santosh @ Santu. Appellant/accused and Sangita hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased Santosh Thakur with the help of Sunil. Santosh @ Santu abducted the deceased Santosh Thakur. Santosh Thakur was murdered after serving him stupefied medicine in liquor and then thrown in River Narmada.

It is argued on behalf of appellant that there is nothing on record to show that he is guilty. Only interested witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The appellant was on bail during trial and never misused the liberty

granted by the trial Court.

Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

Considering the call details of conversation between the appellant/accused and the wife of deceased and other circumstances as proved by the prosecution, appellant/accused does not deserve for suspension of execution of sentence and enlargement on bail at present.

Hence, I.A. No.30538 of 2023 is rejected.

                                 (RAVI MALIMATH)                                     (GAJENDRA SINGH)
                                   CHIEF JUSTICE                                           JUDGE
                           DPS