Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tarachand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 CRA-8643-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 8643 of 2018
(TARACHAND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 04-10-2024
Mrs. Sharmila Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
1. Heard on I.A.No.644/2024, which is second application for suspension of
jail sentence of the appellant who has been convicted by the 6th Additional
Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T.No.381/2016 vide judgment dated 25/7/2018 for
commission of offence punishable under Section 302 / 34 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of
payment of fine 1 year's additional R.I. The first application for suspension of jail
sentence of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 3/1/2019.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the appellant is
pressing this application only on the ground of custody since the appellant has put
in more than 8 years and 8 months of jail incarceration. It is submitted that the
dispute suddenly occurred between accused and the deceased as well as two other
who came out from the liquor bar and started abusing Prakash. Appellant
Tarachand was carrying a Darata and Suresh was carrying a Sariya but no such
injury of Darata was found on the body of the deceased. He died due to asphyxia.
There is no specific finding that who strangulated the neck of the deceased.
Amongst the appellant and co-accused they said to have caused injury to Jagdish
(PW.1) and Meerabai (PW.3) but they have been acquitted from the offence under
Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC. Appellant is not a habitual criminal. He is skilled
worker. This appeal is of the year 2018 and there is no likelihood of its early
2 CRA-8643-2018
hearing. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of jail sentence
filed on behalf of the appellant be allowed and his jail sentence be suspended.
3 . Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State
opposes the application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for both the parties, nature and gravity of the allegation against
the appellant and taking note of the fact that appellant has completed more than 8
years and 8 months of jail incarceration and final conclusion of this appeal will
take considerable long time, we deem it appropriate to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant.
5. Accordingly, I.A.No.644/2024 is allowed and the execution of remaining
jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended till the final disposal of this
appeal. It is directed that the appellant Tarachand be released on bail subject to
depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and upon furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court, with a further direction to appear before the Registry
of this Court on 2/1/2025 and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry
of this Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
6. List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-
