Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roop Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2019
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 Cr.A.No.2894/2019
(Roopsingh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. )
Gwalior Bench:
Dated 20/11/2019
Shri Susheel Goswami, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Arjun Parihar, learned Public Prosecutor for
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.8614/2019, second application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant No. 3- Tijabai for suspension of her remaining jail sentence. First application vide I.A.No. 5961/2019 stood dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6/8/2019.
By the impugned judgment of sentence and order of conviction, appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 304(2)/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer seven years RI with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month RI.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that trial court erred in convicting the appellant and awarding jail sentence; whereas, prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant No. 3 has been implicated with the aid of Section 34 of IPC whereas, no, direct role is attributable over appellant No. 3, so far as infliction of any injury is concerned. Even otherwise, as per the submissions, incident occurred suddenly on the point of electricity disconnection and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 Cr.A.No.2894/2019 (Roopsingh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. ) therefore, no premeditated or pre-concerted minds were existed to commit the offence. Appellant is a lady aged 45 years. So far as incarceration is concerned, she already suffered incarceration for more than 9 months. Hearing of appeal will take time and he has a strong case on merits.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the prayer and prayed for its rejection.
Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended subject to appellant's furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before Registry of this Court on 20/2/2020 and all other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard.
However, the aforesaid suspension order shall be subject to the condition that appellant No. 3 shall plant 10 saplings (either fruit bearing trees or Neem/ Peepal) alongwith tree guards or has to make arrangement for fencing for protection of the trees because it is the duty of the appellant not only to plant the saplings but also to nurture them. ** o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gS A** HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 Cr.A.No.2894/2019 (Roopsingh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. ) She shall plant saplings/ trees preferably of 6-8 ft., so that they would grow into full fledged trees at an early time. For ensuring the compliance, she shall have to submit all the photographs of plantation of trees/ saplings before the concerned trial Court alongwith a report within 30 days from the date of release of the appellant. The report shall be submitted by the appellant before the trial Court every third month till final disposal of this appeal.
It is the duty of the trial Court to monitor the progress of the trees because human existence is at stake because of the environmental degradation and Court cannot put a blind fold over any casualness shown by the appellant regarding compliance. Therefore, trial Court is directed to submit a report regarding progress of the trees and the compliance made by the appellant by placing a short report before this Court every quarterly (every three months), which shall be placed under the caption "Direction" before this Court.
Any default on behalf of appellant in plantation or caring of trees shall disentitle the appellant from enjoying the benefit of bail.
The appellant shall be at liberty to plant these saplings/ trees at an place of her choice, if she intends to protect the trees on her own cost by providing tree guards or fencing.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 Cr.A.No.2894/2019 (Roopsingh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. ) This direction is made by this Court as a test case to address the Anatomy of Violence and Evil by process of Creation and a step towards Alignment with Nature. The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as they are innately engrained attributes of human existence.
"It is not the question of Plantation of a Tree but the Germination of a Thought."
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy today.
List for hearing in due course.
(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-
JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI 2019.11.20 16:54:19 +05'30'