Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naresh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 4 February, 2014
Criminal Appeal No. 1711/2011
04.02.2014
Shri Vishal Dhagad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Umesh Pandey, learned Govt. Adv for respondent-State.
Smt. Durgesh Nandani, learned counsel for the complainant namely Govindi Prasad Patel, S/o Darbari Patel, R/o village Hardani, P.S. Damoh Dehat, District Damoh.
At the request of appellant's counsel the case is taken out of its turn from the cause list.
The complainant, victim is also present in person. He is identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No. 4040/13, an application filed with the joint signatures of the appellant as well as aforesaid complainant permitting them to compound the impugned offence.
It is noted that signature of the appellant on such application is attested by the Superintendent of District Jail, Damoh, where the appellant is facing the awarded jail sentence under Section 307/34 of IPC.
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the trial court under Section 307/34 of IPC RI for ten years with fine of Rs.1000/- and it is undisputed fact that such Section is not made compoundable under the law. So in any case this permission could not be allowed but I am of the considered view that while dealing with the matter on merits if the impugned conviction of the appellant is affirmed, then the factum of compromise could be taken into consideration to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant. So in such premises, I deem fit to verify the facts stated in the IA from the complainant present.
On asking the complainant in this regard, he said such IA is drafted at his instance as well as at the instructions of the appellant and he has voluntarily entered in the compromise and appellant being his cousin brother, the matter has been settled amicably between them and in such premises. He further said that he has not been pressurized to enter in such compromise.
On such verification the facts stated in the application appear to be bonafide and genuine and in such premises, it is observed that aspect of this compromise shall be considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal for reduction of the awarded jail sentence, if the conviction is affirmed.
It is also noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submits that the appellant does not have any objection in allowing the aforesaid compromise.
Accordingly the aforesaid IA is disposed of.
Also heard on IA No. 27632/13, appellant's fourth repeat bail application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as he has been convicted under Section 307/34 of IPC RI for ten years with fine of Rs.1000/-.
His earlier first bail application filed for suspension of jail sentence was dismissed, vide order dated 29.2.2012 by extending some liberty and thereafter second and third applications have been dismissed vide orders dated 22.3.2013 and 16.9.2013 as withdrawn and not pressed. In such premises, no application has been considered on merits of the matter.
The appellant's counsel after taking me through the record of the trial court as well as impugned judgment argued that at the time of the incident there was a long enmity between the parties and on account of that the appellant was falsely implicated in the matter while he has not committed any alleged offence. In continuation he said that during trial the appellant has suffered the judicial custody for one year and twenty four days as stated by the trial court in the certificate issued under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. and since the date of the impugned judgment, i.e. 14.7.2011 till today he is facing the awarded jail sentence and in such premises, he has suffered more than 3 and 1/2 years out of the awarded jail sentence.
He also argued that taking into consideration such period suffered by the appellant in jail and aforesaid factum of compromise, by allowing this application, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the State's Counsel saying that looking to the nature of offence in which the same was committed by the appellant against his family member, for which sufficient evidence has been adduced by the prosecution, the appellant does not deserve for suspension of his remaining jail sentence.
Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments, advanced by the appellant's counsel, so also the available circumstances of the case and the aforesaid verification of the compromise application alongwith aforesaid period suffered by the appellant in jail out of the awarded jail sentence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the IA is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the fine amount the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.
It is further directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. twenty five thousand) along with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court by the appellant, Naresh Patel shall be released on bail with a further direction to remain present before the court of CJM, Damoh firstly on 29.4.2014 and on such other dates as are fixed by such court in this regard till disposal of this appeal.
C c as per rules.
(U. C. Mahes hwar i) Judge bks