Banshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2017



Shri A.U. Siddique, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A.
No.4265/2017, an application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence of
appellant No.1-Banshi.

The appellant has been found guilty for offence under
Section 354 IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (P.A.)
Act, 1989 and has been sentenced to 3 years RI and
fine for each offence.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned trial Court has recorded the conviction
without properly appreciating the evidence on record
and that material omissions, contradictions and
anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have
been overlooked. It is also submitted that the
appellant was on bail during trial and the liberty so
granted was not misused by him. It is further
submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficiently
long time in its final disposal and if the sentence is
not suspended then, it shall be rendered infructuous.
Though the prayer for suspension is opposed by
learned Public Prosecutor, however, looking to the
aforesaid, without further commenting on the merits
of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the
custodial sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 4265/17 is allowed and it is
directed that on execution of personal bond by the
appellant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court for his appearance before this
Court, the execution of custodial sentence imposed
against him shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.

The appellant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark
his presence before the Registry of this Court on
20.11.2017 and on all such subsequent dates, which
are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
CC as per rules.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *