BHARTU ALIAS BHARAT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A.No.7925/2023, first application under Sec. 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant No.2 Maniram Kherua. Appellant has been convicted by Additional Session Judge, Lateri, District Vidisha (M.P.) vide judgment dtd. 1/12/2022 passed in Sessions Trial No.49/2018 for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100.00; under Sec. 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer six month's RI, with default stipulation.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution case itself, incident took place all of a sudden. He referring to the statement of Raghubir (PW-4) submits that initially quarrel took place between co-accused - Bhujji and Bharat on one side and deceased Pramod on the other side. Admittedly, during MLC and the post mortem, only one injury was found on the body of the deceased Pramod which is attributed to the co-accused Bhujji. There is nothing on record which indicates that the appellant Maniram was having any common intention with the co-accused person. There was no pre-meditation of mind. It is apparent from the statement of other prosecution witnesses that they came on the spot during the incident and thereafter a free-fight occurred wherein both the parties sustained injuries. Under these circumstances, the appellant's conviction with the aid of Sec. 34 of IPC for commission of murder of the deceased is not sustainable. The appellant is in custody and has suffered about 1 year and 11 months' incarceration out of life imprisonment awarded to him. There is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future. Therefore, his remaining jail sentence be suspended and he be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submits that almost all the injured witnesses have supported the prosecution case and deposed that the appellant was very well present on the spot at the time of incident with co-accused Bhujji. Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The offence alleged against him is serious in nature, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Having considered rival submissions and material pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant specifically with regard to the fact that incident took place all of a sudden and deceased Pramod sustained one injury on his body, there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future and other facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application is allowed and the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is suspended.