Pankaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15705 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pankaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                             1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                      CRA No. 2883 of 2021
                                                (PANKAJ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 27-05-2024
                                Shri Ashok Jain-Advocate for appellant.

                                Shri Rajesh Shukla-Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.

Heard o n I.A.No.9042/2024, which is sixth application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence on behalf of appellant-Pankaj Ahirwar.

Appellant stands convicted under Sections 376(D)/511 of IPC and

sentenced to undergo 10 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/-, under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and under Section 449 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years' with fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation vide judgment dated 12/02/2021 passed in SC No.49/2020 by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar (M.P.).

As per prosecution story, allegation against the present appellant is that he along with other co-accused persons committed rape with prosecutrix, aged about 14 years and thereafter, set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil.

Earlier application (I.A. No.2299/2023) filed by present appellant was already dismissed on merits vide order dated 21/03/2023. Thereafter, another application (I.A. No.1460/2024) was filed which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13/03/2024. Now, within a period of 3 months, the instant application (I.A. No.9042/2024) has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offence will not travel beyond the offence under Section 304 Part-I of IPC for which the appellant has

already undergone sufficient period of custody. Hence, he prays that the application be allowed and the remaining jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till final disposal of the appeal.

P e r contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes 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 appellant. Hence, he is not entitled to grant benefit of suspension of sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with due care.

Looking to the intention and the overt act of the present appellant, prima facie we are not convinced that this case will fall under Section 304-I of IPC.

Hence, it is not a fit case for allowing the application for suspension of sentence.

Accordingly I.A.No.9042/2024 stands dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

                             (VIVEK RUSIA)                                     (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
                                 JUDGE                                                 JUDGE

                          (Dubey)