High CourtsSingle Bench

Durjansingh Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 20 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 MP CK 0060

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajendra Kumar Vani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 389(1), 389(3) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 323, 325
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 14333 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 389 words

Rajendra Kumar Vani, J

Heard on IA No.21067/2023, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Appellant stands convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced t o undergo three months' RI with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raghaugarh, District Guna (M.P.) in ST No.12/2019.

Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjecture and surmises. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the present appellant without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. The appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. Fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant. The jail sentence of appellant was already suspended by learned Trial Court, under Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties but without commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 02.01.2024 and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.

Accordingly, I.A. No.21067/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.

Record of the trial Court be called for.

List this appeal for admission after receipt of record.

Certified copy as per rules.