Munim Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6277 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Munim Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                             1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                     CRA No. 8183 of 2022
                                       (MUNIM YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                         Dated : 29-02-2024
                               Shri Ashish Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for appellant

                               Ms. Shanti Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for respondents-State.

Record of the Court below is received.

Heard on I.A.No.16603/2023, which is an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the

appellant.

The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution version, the complainant was pushed back from behind, as a result of which, he fell in a well. Later on, he was taken out with the help of one Maniram and Shivnath. It is contended by the counsel that the testimony of Maniram (PW-3) makes it abundantly clear that the complainant was in the state of insobriety and

he was sleeping inside the well on a loft when he was taken out from the well. It is contended by the counsel that the said testimony has been ignored by the trial Court while arriving at the impugned findings which are there in the impugned judgment. Therefore, taking into consideration the aforesaid ignorance of testimony of Maniram (PW-3), the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail who is suffering incarceration since 1 year and 6 months.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer. Heard the rival submissions and perused the case diary.

If paragraph 2 of the testimony of Santram (PW-1), is perused while placing the same at juxtaposition with paragraph 2 of the testimony of Maniram (PW-3), the same would reveal that when the complainant was in well and was screaming for help, Maniram (PW-3) reached to the well and he arranged a rope and with the help of which, the complainant came out from well. Maniram (PW-

3) in paragraph 2 of his testimony has stated that the complainant was intoxicated, when he was taken out from the well.

Thus, taking into considering the totality of the circumstances and particularly the testimony of Maniram (PW-3), this Court deem it proper to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant. Therefore, without commenting

anything on the merit of the case, the application is allowed.

The execution of jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended subject to depositing the fine amount, (if not already deposited) and on his furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court on 10.07.2024 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

The appeal has already been admitted for final hearing, so it be listed for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE

mn