VISHNU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A.No. 16118/2023, which is first application filed under Sec. 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence of appellant who stands convicted vide judgment dtd. 27/3/2023 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch (MP) in Session Trial No. 100102/2015 for offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000.00 and Sec. 201 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs.1000.00 and default stipulations.

(2.) The prosecution case found to be proved is that on 15/8/2015 deceased Ganesh along with the appellant and other co-accused persons had gone to the hutment (dera) o f one Sunderbai (PW-5) for consuming liquor. Some dispute arose and the accused persons assaulted the deceased Ganesh. Thereafter, they went to Sarsi Road where he was again beaten and Ashok, Vishnu, Karu and Pankaj assaulted with stone on his head due to which he died and his body was thrown on the road to show that it was an accident.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is neither any evidence of last seen nor any eye witness to the incident. In all, 10 accused persons have been implicated in the case and convicted solely on the basis of statement of Sampatlal (PW-2) and Sunderbai (PW-5). Sampatlal (PW-2) is the father of the deceased Ganesh who specifically stated that he has not seen the incident but all the 10 accused persons used to live with the deceased. Sunderbai (PW-5) who is the owner of the hutment (dera) where initially the incident took place, also turned hostile. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the statement recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. There is no evidence at all on the basis of which it could be said that the accused had actually committed the crime. The chain of evidence is not complete. Final disposal of this appeal will take considerable time. Further, the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is prayed that the jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.