Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manmohan Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2016
CRA-2058-2016
(MANMOHAN DANGI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
25-10-2016
Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior counsel with Shri Vikas
Mahawar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ashish Bernard, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No. 15764/2016, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
The appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under sections 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no eye witness account of the incident and the witnesses on whom the reliance has been placed by the trial court have turned hostile. It is stated that while the prosecution case is that deceased Nikhlesh @ Nikki was beaten to death by the persons who were travelling in the Scorpio belonging to the appellant and the Swift vehicles, however, the court below has acquitted all the persons who were accused of the crime and were said to have been travelling in the aforesaid two vehicles, in view of the fact that the eye witnesses namely; PW.1 Bittu alias Ram Giri and PW. 9 Sunil Gaur have turned hostile and they have not named any of the accused person but the present appellant, has been convicted only on account of the fact that the vehicle said to have been involved in the incident belonged to the appellant and that he had talked to constable Khemendra. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposes the application for bail submitting that there is sufficient evidence on record which has been duly considered by the trial court in paragraph 67 of its judgment to uphold the conviction of the appellant and in such circumstances, the application be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record including paragraph 67 of the judgment of the court below, it appears that there is no person who has seen the appellant at the scene of the crime or committing the crime and though one of the vehicles used in crime belongs to the appellant, however there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant was travelling in the said vehicle or involved in the commission of the offence. On the contrary, the court below has acquitted all other persons who were traveling in the vehicle and who were accused of having committed the crime. It is also evident that the appellant was on bail during the trial and has not misused the liberty granted to him by the trial court.
In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the application deserves to and is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the sentence of imprisonment, imposed upon the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM Bhopal, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21.12.2016 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the office.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAVI SHANKAR JHA) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
a