DEEPAK JATAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A. No.7207 of 2024, 1st application under Sec. 389(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the appellant. T h e appellant has been convicted under Sec. 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 01 year RI with fine of Rs.1000.00 with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 1/3/2024 passed by XVth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.15/2023.

(2.) The prosecution story as found proved against the appellant is that on 14/2/2022 at about 07:00 in the evening, complainant Kishan and his maternal uncle Ravi Balmik s/o Gopal Balmik who happens to live in his house were going to mandi. At that time, Gori Rathore and Gorav @ Boraiya met them in the premises of new mandi and asked for Rs.2000.00 for consumption of liquor. When his maternal-uncle objected to it, both of them i.e. Gori Rathore and Gorav @ Boraiya hurled abuses. When his maternal-uncle asked him not to hurl abuse Gori Rathore inflicted Sariya blow to his maternal uncle which caused injury on his forehead. Gorav Boraiya hit him by kick due to which his maternal uncle fell down on the ground whereafter Gori Rathore once again inflicted sariya blow to his maternal uncle which caused injury behind his head and out of which blood started oozing. When he screamed, his mother Seema and others rushed. Both the accused ran away from the spot by threatening them for dire consequences in case the matter is reported. On the basis of aforesaid incident, FIR was lodged. Investigation was set at motion. During investigation, name of present appellant i.e. Deepak was disclosed by the complainant instead of accused Gorav. After completion of investigation and recording of statements and other necessary formalities, challan was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial and the Sessions Court convicted the appellants as referred above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in correct perspective. The judgment suffers from surmises and conjecture. Appellant so far has undergone 01 month and 08 days out of imposed sentence of one year. Final disposal of the appeal is likely to take time. Fine amount has already been deposited. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that execution of the jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and prayed for its rejection.