Madhya Pradesh High Court
Preetam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 465 of 2016
(PREETAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 16-05-2024
Shri Ashok Jain-Advocate for appellants.
Shri Ravindra Singh -Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.6553/2024 & I.A. No.6538/2024, which are second
& third repeat applications filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of
bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence on behalf of appellant No.1&2
namely Preetam & Dharmendra respectively solely on the ground of long
incarceration suffered by present appellants which is only 10 years and 9
months in the case of double murder.
Appellants stand convicted under Sections 302/34 (2 counts) of IPC and
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with usual
default stipulation vide judgment dated 4/4/2016 passed in ST No.139/2013 by
Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, District Datia (M.P.).
A s per prosecution story, the alleged incident took place in the
agricultural field where the deceased Dharmu Kushwaha & Suman Kushwaha
were cultivating the land claiming themselves to be owner of the land. The
accused persons approached and objected it and suddenly, dispute arose. Out
of anger, accused persons gave blows by axe and both Dharmu & Suman
(deceased) died on spot. Accordingly, case has been registered.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that present appellants are
innocent person and they have been falsely implicated in this matter. The
present appellants have already suffered jail incarceration for the period of 10
years and 9 months. They are permanent resident of District - Datia. There is
strong case in favour of the appellants. Since appeal is of the year 2016, final
disposal of the appeal will take considerable long time. Under these
circumstances, he prays that the applications be allowed and the remaining jail
sentence of the present appellants be suspended till final disposal of the appeal.
P e r contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State oppose the
application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection by submitting
that the trial Court after due consideration of the evidence available on record,
convicted the appellants. Hence, they are not entitled to get benefit of
suspension of sentence.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with
due care.
S o far as merits of the case is concerned, the appellants went to the
agricultural field of the deceased with axe. Therefore, they had a knowledge that
they were cultivating the land and went there with an intention to create a
dispute. That apart, it is not a case of single blow but multiples injuries were
caused to both deceased.
Accordingly, at this stage, we are of the considered opinion that it is not
a fit case for allowing the application for suspension of sentence.
Accordingly I.A.No.6553/2024 & I.A. No.6538/2024 stand
dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
