Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 12736 of 2023
(RAVI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-05-2024
Ms Sharmila Sharma - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri G S Chouhan - Government Advocate for the respondents State.
Heard on I.A.No.2744/2024, which is the first application filed under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of the appellant No.1 - Ravi, S/o Anarsingh Barela.
2 . The appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 08.09.2023
passed by the Sessions Judge, Barwani,(MP) in Session Trial No.10/2023 for
offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
3. As per the prosecution case the appellant has been convicted for
committing the murder of Kanjiya on 16.11.2022 in furtherance of, intention
with Gudiya @ Ramesh regarding which firstly Marg under 50/2022 was
registered and and a Crime No. 273/2022 was registered at Police Station
Silawad, District Barwani.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. This application has
been preferred on the ground that the appellant is a permanent resident of
District Barwani. He shall abide by all the conditions of the bail. The appeal
will take time to be heard finally. The appellant has no relation with the so
called incident. There is no independent witnesses. The prosecutions have
examined the family members of the deceased. It caste doubt and the
prosecution version. The incident has been intimated by the Doctor on
17.11.2022, whereas the incident occurred on 16.11.2022. In the First
Information Report, the appellants accused have not been mentioned as the
persons, who caused injuries to the deceased Kanjiya. Accordingly, the version
of Rahul Solanki (PW-1) and Saidam Solanki (PW-2) as eye witness becomes
suspicious. The same witnesses have been examined only on 28.11.2022. The
appellant has undergone a sufficient period of sentence (since 28.11.2022).
The application of the appellant is supported by the affidavit of brother of
appellant accused. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is prayed that the jail
sentence of appellant be suspended and she be released on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State has opposed the application
by submitting that there are sufficient materials available on record against the
present appellant. The prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable
doubt and therefore, the appellant/accused is not entitled for suspension of jail
sentence.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7 . Considering the testimony of Rahul Solanki (PW-1) and Saidam
Solanki (PW-2) examined as eye witnesses of the incident, non-explanation of
the human blood from the shirt, baniyan and pants of the appellant-Ravi and
looking to the period of custody i.e one year, five months and twelve days only,
we are not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of appellant/accused at present
even after taking into consideration the age of the appellant/accused. Hence,
I.A.No.2744/2024 is rejected.
8. Accordingly, I.A.No.2745/2024, which is an application for urgent
hearing also stands disposed off.
9. List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
rashmi
