Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14828 OF 2023
(Pradeep vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 27.02.2024
Mr. Vivek Singh, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Singh Chouhan, counsel for the
respondent/State.
_____________________________________________________
Heard on IA No.2476 of 2024 which is first application
under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, filed on
behalf of sole appellant - Pradeep S/o Mishrilal Yadav who has
been convicted by 20th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (MP) in
Session Trial No.1100521/2014 vide judgment dated 04.10.2023
and has been sentenced him as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Section & Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in
Amount lieu of fine
302/34 IPC RI for life Rs.2000/- 06 months Addl. RI
Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid offence. He
submits that trial court judgment is contrary to law and facts on
record and is neither legal nor proper and nor it is correct. The
case is based on testimony of Manoj Sikarwar (PW/21) who
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14828 OF 2023
(Pradeep vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
happens to be the real brother of deceased Chinu @ Ajay and
alleged himself to be an eye witness and his statement does not
inspire any confidence and is not having any reliability. He also
submits that Pankaj Khandelwal (PW/9) and Ritesh Pargir
(PW/24) were the persons who took the deceased to the hospital
and where they had called Manoj Sikarwar (PW/21) for giving an
information that his brother had sustained injuries. He further
submits that trial court was wrong in believing the prosecution
witnesses and discarding the defence version and that there are
material omissions and contradicitions in the statement of
prosecution witnesses. Counsel has placed reliance over the
judgment of Rod Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
1994 CRI.LJ.1440 in which it has been held that "if these
witnesses had seen the assailant, they would not have tried to
ascertain from their father the name of the assailant." He
submits that the final disposal of appeal is likely to take sufficient
long time. Hence prays for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent/State has opposed
the application and prays for its rejection.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14828 OF 2023
(Pradeep vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, we are of
the considered opinion that it is a fit case for grant of suspension
to the appellant. Accordingly, application IA No.2476 of 2024 is
allowed.
It is directed that substantive jail sentence of appellant -
Pradeep S/o Mishrilal Yadav 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.1,00,000/-(Rupees
One Lakh only) with one solvent surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of concerned trial Court for his appearance on
29.04.2024 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
the Court concerned in this behalf. Accordingly, application IA
No.2476 of 2024 stands disposed of. As this appeal is already an
admitted appeal. Hence list the appeal for final hearing in due
course. Certified copy, as per Rules.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arun/-
ARUN Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=d5b56e3de75e7828ced1a96bc4f018
04c3ea1f0a5497e4019e41c0a82cbabbf0,
NAIR
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=192F2423E128DC1CC004DD8F
F22B3F2FFC3D1EF75981FCBEF3B2B76823F27
0F7, cn=ARUN NAIR
Date: 2024.02.28 19:23:41 +05'30'
