[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Patel Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2026
1 CRA-2765-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2765 of 2025
(SACHIN PATEL KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-01-2026
Shri Vishnu Kumar Upadhyay - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Shivam Dubey - Panel Lawyer for State.
Shri Prabal Singh Rajput - Advocate for objector.
Heard on I.A. No.12582 of 2025, a first application under Section
430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.2 Shubham @ Shivam
Patel Kushwaha.
2. This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed in
Sessions Trial No.649 of 2023 by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions
Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.), whereby present appellant has been convicted under
Sections 304 (Part-I) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo ten years R.I.
and fine of Rs.2,000/- and one year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- respectively
with default stipulations.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the
appellant No.2 has been in custody since 09.09.2023. It is contended that
there is no incriminating material on record against him and that he has been
erroneously convicted by the learned Trial Court. According to the
prosecution story, the present appellant along with co-accused Sachin was
allegedly present at the spot, armed with knives and both fled after the
2 CRA-2765-2025
witnesses arrived. However, the FSL report as well as the report of the
fingerprint expert do not connect the present appellant with the alleged
offence. The post-mortem report discloses only a single incised injury on the
thigh of the deceased, allegedly caused by means of knife. Had there been an
assault by two persons armed with knives, it would reasonably be expected
that multiple injuries would have been found on the body of the deceased. It
is further submitted that there are material contradictions, omissions and
variations in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as well as inherent
infirmities in the prosecution case, which render the prosecution story
doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in the
absence of any overt act attributable to the appellant No.2, his conviction
cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, submitted that the present appellant has
a good case on merits. There is no likelihood of final hearing of this appeal
in near future. He is ready to comply with the condition as may be imposed
by the Court. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that the remaining jail
sentence of appellant No.2 be suspended and he be released on bail.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for
the objector have vehemently opposed the application. It is submitted that
eyewitness Ajay Kol (PW-2) has categorically stated that the present
appellant along with co-accused Sachin assaulted the deceased with a knife.
During the said assault, the deceased sustained an injury on his thigh, which
proved fatal and consequently, he succumbed to the said injury. The overt act
attributable to the present appellant clearly emerges from the prosecution
story as well as from the evidence available on record. The present appellant
3 CRA-2765-2025
has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, which sufficiently
establishes the commission of the alleged offence and his participation
therein. He does not have a good case on merits and therefore, he is not
entitled for the benefit of suspension of sentence and prays for rejection of
this application.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. Considering the gravity
of the offence, the nature of allegations, the evidence available on record and
the attending facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the appeal, this Court is of the considered view that
the appellant No. 2 has failed to make out a case for suspension of sentence
at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
filed on behalf of appellant No. 2 stands rejected.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
