Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omkar Prasad Patel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 November, 2020
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1 CRA-3171-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-3171-2020
(OMKAR PRASAD PATEL Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 25-11-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Ms. Sneh Mishra, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Amit Bhurrak, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.6150/2020 filed on behalf of appellant Omkar Prasad Patel for suspension of substantive jail sentence passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.172/2009 on 30.1.2020.
The trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under sections 147, 452/149, 323/149 and 302/149 of IPC and awarded the rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, 1 year, 1 year and life imprisonment respectively.
It is submitted by the counsel for appellant that the prosecution has not produced any reliable evidence against the appellant. The statement of Biharilal, who lodged the first information report, is not reliable. He changed his version before the Court. The other witnesses have also not supported the case of prosecution. The counsel also draws attention towards the postmortem report and the statement of Dr.Anil Jhamnani (P.W.11). It is submitted that the cause of death of deceased has not supported the case of prosecution and the oral evidence.
On the other side, the counsel for State strongly opposed the application.
This case is related to the murder of Manraman Patel. The trial court discussed the entire evidence in details. Minute observation or marshalling of the prosecution evidence is not expected at the stage of deciding the application for suspension of substantive jail sentence. The statements of Biharilal (P.W.1), Jagrup (P.W.2), Vinay alias Bihari (P.W.4), Mohwati Signature Not (P.W.6) and Sudama (P.W.7) supported the case of prosecution and from SAN Verified Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2020.11.26 15:05:09 IST 2 CRA-3171-2020 the perusal of the aforesaid statements, prima facie, the involvement of present appellant cannot be denied. The statement of Dr.Anil Jhamnani (P.W.11) also supported the case of prosecution. The deceased was brutally assaulted by the accused persons. When any offence is committed in furtherance of the common intention of various accused, then any one accused cannot be escaped from his liability only by saying that he did not use any dangerous weapon or did not cause any fatal injury to anybody. All accused are equally liable for the act committed by any of them.
Therefore, looking to the overall circumstances, in our view, the appellant is not entitled to get the suspension of substantive jail sentence.
Hence, the application is dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) (B. K. SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
TG /-
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
TRUPTI GUNJAL
Date: 2020.11.26
15:05:09 IST