High CourtsSingle Bench

Jagdeesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 24 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 MP CK 0106

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 389(1, 389(3)) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 326
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 9349 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 · 435 words

Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, J

Heard on the question of admission.

Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on IA No. 13439/2023, first application under Section 389(1) Cr. P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Appellant stand convicted under Sections 326 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12/07/2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda District Guna (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 21/2017.

Learned Counsel for appellant submits that there is only one injury on left thumb of the injured. On x-ray, it was found fracture. It is further submitted 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 contractions 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 sentences of appellant was 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. He contends that appellant is convicted on proper appreciation of evidence. No case is made out for suspension of sentence.

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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety each 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 11.09.2023 and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 13439/2023 stands allowed and disposed of. Call for the record of the Court below and list thereafter for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.