Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devshankar @ Khurshiram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-6423-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6423 of 2024
(DEVSHANKAR @ KHURSHIRAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 27-01-2025
Shri Nitin Dubey - Learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Arvind Dubey- Learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.21581/2024, first application under Section 430(1) of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Devshankar @ Kushiram.
2. Appellant No.1 has been convicted vide judgment dated 01.05.2024
passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hatta, District Damoh in S.T.
No.75/2021 for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default
R.I. for six months.
3. T h e prosecution story found to be proved is that on 13.06.2001 at
about 1.30 to 03.00 hours in the night, in village Pipariya, Police Station
Hatta, District Damoh, when the deceased was sleeping in his house, the
appellant No.1 alongwith other co-accused in furtherance of their common
intention to commit murder of the deceased, set him ablaze and thereby
committed his murder. On the basis of aforesaid guilt, the appellant No.1 has
been convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that appellant No.1 is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution has
2 CRA-6423-2024
failed to prove that there was previous enmity of the appellants with the
deceased. There is no eye witness to the incident and there is material
contradiction and omission in the statements of witnesses. There is material
contradiction with regard to the time and place of incident also. Moreover,
there is insertion and manipulation in the dying declaration of the deceased,
wherein it appears that names of appellants have been inserted at a later
stage. Learned counsel further contended that appellant No.1 has already
suffered more than three years of incarceration. The appeal is of the year
2024 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of this appeal, therefore, jail
sentence of appellant No.1 may be suspended and he be released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently
opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submitted that
looking to the gravity of offence and evidence that has come on record, the
application is liable to be rejected.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering
the lacuna in the prosecution evidence so also looking to the custody period
of the appellant No.1, this Court deems it appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of appellant No.1 and release him on bail. Accordingly, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I.A. No.21581/2024 is allowed. It is
directed that substantive jail sentence of appellant No.1 Devshankar @
Khusiram shall remain suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount
(if not already deposited) and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the
3 CRA-6423-2024
like amount to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court for his appearance
before the trial Court on 24.03.2025 and on all other subsequent dates as may
be fixed by the Court concerned.
8. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shanu
