Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajveer In Compliance Of Honble Court ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 25 March, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 991 of 2017
(RAJVEER IN COMPLIANCE OF HONBLE COURT ORDER DATED APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED DUE TO
WITHDRAWN IN REGARD AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
Dated : 25-03-2022
Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Purushottam Tanwar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.18214/2020, which is third application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant Pavan. The earlier applications have been dismissed as withdrawn.
Appellant stands convicted under section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one year by virtue of judgment dated 21/7/2017 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in S.T. No.232/2015.
As per prosecution story, an information was given at Police Station Gijorra on 8/4/2015 by complainant Vrindavan alias Dhola Sahu that on 7/4/2015 his brother Sudip had telephonically informed him from Kirol that the present appellant and one Rajveer had brought a person on Motorcycle and thereafter had taken him inside a Kothi where he was beaten black and blue, as screaming of that person could be heard. On the following day morning, when he reached the place of incident inside the Kothi, he saw that the said person was lying in a pool of blood. Accordingly report was written and the case was registered for investigation. During investigation, upon collection of oral and documentary evidence, Challan was filed. The Court below, upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record, has found that the prosecution has proved the charges framed against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him, as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellant,while taking exception to the impugned judgment, submits that the oral testimony of complainant Vrindavan alias Dhola Sahu (PW7) looses its significance in the teeth of testimony of his brother Sudip (PW5) and, therefore, chain was broken in the context of occurrence of incident and element of mens rea. Hence, conviction based upon evidence of complainant Vrindavan (PW7) and that of Sudip (PW5) is perverse and un-sustainable. As such, the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of suspension of sentence.
2Per contra learned Panel Lawyer, while supporting the impugned judgment, submits that the findings recorded by the Court below are impregnable and the conclusions drawn are absolutely impeccable in nature.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the testimonies of Vrindavan (PW7) and Sudip (PW5), as well discussed in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that no exception can be taken to the aforesaid judgment in the matter of suspension of sentence as complicity of appellant is apparent from evidence on record.
Consequently, no case is made out for suspension of sentence. The I.A, accordingly, stand dismissed.
Observations on facts are only for the purpose of disposal of the I.A and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
I.A. No.29198/2021, an application for interim suspension of custodial sentence for a period of three months, moved on the ground of ill health of appellant on 24/09/2021, by the efflux of time, has rendered infructuous. Even otherwise, in view of the health status report of the appellant dated 13/10/2021 received from Medical officer, Central Jail, Gwalior, the prayer cannot be countenanced. The I.A., accordingly, stands rejected.
(ROHIT ARYA) (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)
ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
2022.03.28
10:55:16
+05'30'