Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayesh Chohtel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
1 CRA-4811-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-4811-2017
(JAYESH CHOHTEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
21
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Alok Vagrecha, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No. 8846/2020, which is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Jayesh Chohtel.
Appellant stands convicted by the trial Court for committing offences punishable under Sections 148, 341 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years, SI for one month and RI for life with fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 5,000/-, respectively. The first application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.12.2018.
As per the case of the prosecution, when the deceased was going on a motor cycle, appellant along with co-accused persons stopped him. Some altercation took place between them, the motor-cycle fell down and the deceased ran away. Allegedly, co-accused Neeraj followed the deceased and gave a blow on his head with a base-ball bat. Thereafter, the present appellant along with co-accused Banti Banafar assaulted the deceased by means of knife and sword.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record. So far as the recovery of weapon-sword from the appellant and spot map of the place of incident are concerned, there is material defect in the case of the prosecution. Further, there are material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of Rahul Sonkar (PW-1).
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the application for suspension.
2 CRA-4811-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. The case is based on the testimony of eye-witnesses who have duly proved the involvement and active participation of appellant Jayesh in the crime. He was armed with a sword and inflicted injuries on the deceased. Doctor has found fatal injuries on the neck, chest and stomach of the deceased caused by hard and sharp edged weapon.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, role assigned to the present appellant, testimony of the eye-witnesses and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence corroborated by medical evidence, in our considered opinion it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 8846/2020 stands rejected.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
Digitally signed
by SREEVIDYA
Date: 2021.09.20
16:48:51 +05'30'