Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 June, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1 Cr.A.No.2882.2024
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No.2882.2024
(Raju & Others vs. The State of M.P.)
Gwalior, dated :06.06.2024
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri V.K. Jha -
Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Pavan Singh Raghuvanshi - Public Prosecutor for
respondent/State.
I.A.Nos.11520 & 11521 of 2024, applications for urgent hearing,
are taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
The revision being arguable is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Courts below be called.
Also, heard on I.A.No.11522 of 2024, first application under
Section 397 (1) of CrPC for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail
to the petitioners.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated
31.05.2024 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in
Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2022 affirming the judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 26.07.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Morena in Criminal Case No.100084 of 2012, by which the petitioners
have been convicted convicted as under:
SECTIONS IMPRISONMENT FINE
1 Raju Rawat 419 of IPC 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation
120-B of IPC 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation
2 Kallu 419 of IPC 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
Rawat default stipulation
120-B of IPC 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation
3 Rakesh 419 of IPC 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
Rawat default stipulation
120-B of IPC 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation
4 Mukesh 419/120-B of 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
Rawat IPC default stipulation
120-B of IPC 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation
5 Devendra 419/120-B of 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
Singh IPC default stipulation
Rawat
120-B of IPC 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation
6 Dilip 419/120-B of 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
Kumar IPC default stipulation
Rawat
120-B of IPC 02 years Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation
Learned counsel for the present petitioners, while taking
exception to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, submits that the Courts below had not appreciated the
evidence placed on record in correct perspective and and had convicted
the present petitioners which is not correct. The impugned judgment
suffers from surmises and conjectures.
It was further submitted that the very identity of the petitioners
has not been verified/confirmed during the course of trial by Pradeep
Kumar Shrivastava (PW/3), who had lodged Dehati Nalishi and had
claimed himself to be present for inspection of admit cards.
It was further submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts
below with regard to identity of the petitioners which made the basis for
conviction of the petitioners are illegal and contrary to law, as the
photographs of the candidates affixed on admit cards were not for
forensic examination.
It was further submitted that there are material contradictions and
omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned
Courts below have committed error in convicting and sentencing
present petitioners for the alleged offence. The petitioners are in
custody from the date of judgment i.e. 31.05.2024 and they were also on
bail during trial and they did not misused the liberty so granted to him.
The revision, being of 2024, is not likely to be decided in near future.
They are ready to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be
imposed by this Court while considering application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to them.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that
no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence
found proved against the present petitioners.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court
refrains from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching
merits of the case coupled with the fact that the revision which is of the
year 2024 is not likely to be decided in the near future, in the obtaining
facts and circumstances, this Corut is of the view that present
petitioners are entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.11522 of 2024 stands allowed. The
execution of remaining jail sentence of the petitioners is hereby
suspended and it is ordered that they be released on bail upon each of
them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court and subject to depositing the
fine amount (if not already deposited). The petitioners are directed to
appear before the Registry of this Court on 29.08.2024 and also on such
other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard
during the pendency of this revision.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding
the instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the revision.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
PAWAN
pwn*
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d6
31287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02d9d593f,
KUMAR
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED
49EA436EA65E26164BEEED89153191C56E98C
E21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2024.06.07 11:42:09 +05'30'
