Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jhanjhadiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE CRA No. 5553 of 2018 (JHANJHADIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Dated : 10-01-2024 Shri Jitendra Bajpai - Advocate for appellant Jhanjhadiya S/o Kalu Singh Barela. Shri Tarun Kushwah - Government Advocate for respondent - State of
Madhya Pradesh.
Heard o n I.A. No.52 of 2024, which is first application under Section
389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Jhanjhadiya S/o Kalu Singh Barela.
Vide judgment dated 22.02.2017 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sendhwa, District Barwani (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2015, the present appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 201 of IPC sentenced to 3 years RI with and fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.
A s per prosecution story, on 30/04/2015, the accused/appellant along
with other co-accused took Tarachand, husband of complainant Jalita Bai along with them for consumption of Liquor. According to Jalita Bai, on that day after consuming liquor, co-accused Shankar returned to village in the night at about 1:00 a.m. When she asked Shankar about her husband Tarachand, he didn't answer her. Then the complainant started searching her husband and while searching, when she went towards Palni Road, two kilometers away from Bada Malgaon, she found the dead body of her husband lying under a tree. She saw blood was oozing from the head of her husband and near his dead-body, bloodSignature Not VerifiedSigned by: RAMESHCHANDRA PITHAWESigning time: 1/10/20247:31:10 PM 2
stained stones were also lying there. Thereafter, she returned to the village and narrated the entire story to his brother-in-law Gabbar, Battusingh Patel and Gajla Patel. The police has registered an FIR under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against the appellant and started the investigation. The appellant was arrested and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned counsel for the present appellant has drawn our attention to the material prosecution witnesses and submitted that only on the basis of last seen, the present appellant has been convicted, whereas chain of circ*mstances is not complete nor it has been proved that it is the present appellant, who has committed murder of deceased Tarachand. Nothing has been seized from the
appellant to implicate him in the alleged offence. It is also submitted that Dr. Sharad Bhandari (PW4) in Court admitted that the injuries may be caused by falling down on ground by fall on face. He further submits that the prosecution case is wholly based on circ*mstantial evidence. He also submits that the jail sentence of co-accused Shankar S/o Jerma Barela has already been suspended by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.6138 of 2018. He submits that the aforesaid circ*mstance could not be the only basis for conviction in law and prays that on parity with co-accused Shankar S/o Jerma Barela. the application for suspension of sentence be allowed and the appellant be enlarged on bail.
Per Contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submits that the present appellant along with other co-accused persons has brutally murdered Tarachand, husband of complainant - Jalita Bai and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the application.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not VerifiedSigned by: RAMESHCHANDRA PITHAWESigning time: 1/10/20247:31:10 PM 3
Jalitabai (PW-7) wife of deceased Tarachand has categorically stated that on the date of alleged incident, the appellant and co-accused took away her husband with them for consumption of liquor. Later on, when she saw that co- accused Shankar and present appellant Jhanjhadiya had returned alone towards the village, then she asked about her husband Tarachand, but they didn't reply. It is also submitted that Dr. Sharad Bhandari (PW4), who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to fracture on the frontal bone and excessive bleeding from the injuries sustained by him. Gabbar (PW4), brother of deceased has supported the version of Jalitabai (PW7).
Accordingly, looking to the arguments advance by learned counsel for the parties, material evidence available on record and so also the fact that the appellant has suffered more than eight and half years of jail sentence and there is no likelihood of coming of this case for final hearing in near future, therefore, maintaining parity with co-accused Shankar S/o Jerma Barela, without commenting on the merits of the case the application for suspension of sentence i.e. I.A. No.52 of 2024 is allowed.
Execution of jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended and it is ordered that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 11.03.2024 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court, in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy, as per rules.
Signature Not VerifiedSigned by: RAMESHCHANDRA PITHAWESigning time: 1/10/20247:31:10 PM 4
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA) JUDGE JUDGE rcpSignature Not VerifiedSigned by: RAMESHCHANDRA PITHAWESigning time: 1/10/20247:31:10 PM
