Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 14284 of 2023
(MAHENDRA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 21-05-2024
Shri J.L. Soni - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shanti Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.
Record of the Court below is received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Also heard on I.A. No.5420/2024, which is second application filed on
behalf of the appellant-Mahendra Singh for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail.
Earlier bail application of the present appellant was dismissed as
withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024 bearing I.A.No.139/2024.
The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 333 of
IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.1000/-with
default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not
properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record
while convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. It is contended by the
counsel that the previous application of the present appellant was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 08.01.2024 bearing I.A.No.139/2024 and during
trial the appellant was in jail from 14.11.2022 to 01.05.2023 and he is in jail
since 28.10.2023, therefore, as of now, the appellant has suffered incarceration
of more than one year and one month out of total sentence of four years. It is
further contended by the counsel that the independent witnesses i.e. Mr. Suresh
Kumar Gupta (PW-2) and Ms. Archana Bajpai (PW-4) did not support the
allegations, however, in paragraph 50 of the impugned judgemnt, the Court
observed that the aforesaid witnesses made an attempt to mislead the Court and
submits that the findings which have been given in paragraph 50 of the
judgment, are unsustainable, the Court could not have casted aspersion of the
witnesses. There is material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
witnesses. This appeal is of the year 2023 and final hearing of this appeal will
take considerable time for its final disposal. There is fair chance to succeed in
the appeal. Under these circumstances, if the sentence of the appellant is not
suspended, purpose to file this appeal will be futile. Therefore, prayer is made
for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail of present
appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and
submitted that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial Court on the
basis of proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. It is
contended by the counsel that earlier application of the present appellant was
dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024. It is further
contended by the counsel that as a result of the incident, complainant sustained
a fracture in his wrist and the said fact was supported by Dr. Rahul Yadav
(PW-7). It is thus contended by the counsel that despite the fact that
independent witnesses i.e. Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta (PW-2) and Ms. Archana
Bajpai (PW-4) turned hostile, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.
Therefore, sentence of the appellant should not be suspended.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On perusal of record it reflects that earlier bail application of the appellant
was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.01.2024 and after dismissal of
the previous application, as of now the appellant has suffered incarceration of
more than one year and one month out of total sentence of four years. A
perusal of the record further reflects that the testimony of independent
witnesses i.e. Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta (PW-2) and Ms. Archana Bajpai (PW-
4) has been discussed by the trial Court and there are aspersions by the trial
Court against the aforesaid witnesses. This appeal is of the year 2023 and final
hearing of this appeal will take time.
In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to
the incarceration period of the present appellant and in view of the testimony of
independent witnesses i.e. Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta (PW-2) and Ms. Archana
Bajpai (PW-4), I find it to be a fit case to suspend the jail sentence of the
appellant and to release his on bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merit
of the case, the application is allowed.
I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the appellant shall remain
suspended and she shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the
trial Court concerned on 15.07.2024 and on such other dates as may be fixed
by the trial Court in that regard during pendency of this appeal.
It is made clear that if the appellant is not required in any other case, she
be released forthwith subject to deposit of fine amount.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
