Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Baran Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2021
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1143/2019
Rambaran Jatav Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated : 30.04.2021
Shri Ajay Kumar Nirankari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Pramod Pachori, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Matter is heard through video conferencing.
This Criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 12/11/2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.700041/2008 by Special Judge, (MPDVPK Act), District Gwalior(M.P.), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Section Sentence Fine In default
120-B read Life Rs.10,000/- 3 years
with Imprisonment
Section 364-A
368 Life Rs.10,000/- 3 years
Imprisonment
I.A.No.8307/2021, fourth application for interim suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail moved by appellant -Rambaran Jatav, is taken up and considered.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant- Rambaran Jatav that the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant. There are lots of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant is aged around 57 years and is in custody since the date of judgment i.e. 12/11/2018. It is further submitted that this is the fourth application for interim suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant. Last application for suspension of his jail sentence was rejected 2 on merits vide orer dated 29/1/2021. It is further submitted that in identification parade, the appellant was not identified by the complainant despite only considering the evidence adduced, the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant. There is no possibility of final hearing of this case in near future looking to the present COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, learned counsel prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant.
Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions and prayed for rejection of the application filed for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the material documents available on record.
Earlier application for suspension of jail sentence moved on behalf of the present appellant was decided on merits considering all the facts of the case. This Court is not having jurisdiction to review its own order. Evidence cannot be marshaled finally at the time of considering the suspension of jail sentence.
Considering the nature of allegation against the appellant as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits of the case, at this stage, it is not appropriate to suspend the jail sentence and grant bail to the appellant. Hence, I.A.No.8307/2021 is rejected.
(Sheel Nagu) (Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
Judge Judge
pwn*
Pawan Kumar
2021.05.01
15:25:57 +05'30'