Govind @ Godan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on I.A.No.7101/2020 which is a repeat application for suspension of sentence. Appellant has been convicted under section 148 and 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- in the first count while R.I. for life with fine of Rs.2000/- in the second count with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant Govind @ Godan urged that appellant is in jail for more than 11 years. By taking this court to the statement of Sushila Bai (P.W.3) and Rajkumar (P.W.4), it is argued that on the basis of this evidence it is not safe to holdl that appellant was guilty for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC. By placing reliance on AIR 2017 SC 1150 (Arjun and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) and AIR 2017 SC 2614 (Sikandar Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra), it is argued that at best Section 304 Part-II of IPC can be attracted. Four co-accused persons have been granted bail. Appellant's remaining jail sentence be also suspended.

Prayer is opposed by Shri Amit Bhurrak, P.L. This Court on 22.6.2016 passed following order :-

"Shri Manoj Tiwari, counsel for appellant.

Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for respondent State.

They are heard on I.A. No.7109/2013, which is repeat application for suspension of custodial sentence awarded to appellant Govind @ Godan. Appellant Govind @ Godan stands convicted by the trial Court for various offences, including the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for having committed murder of Munna on 16.6.2005.FIR was lodged by the deceased himself at P.S. Surkhi. The incident was seen by his wife Sushila Bai (PW-3) and Raj Kumar (PW-4). They have fully supported the prosecution case. The trial Court after considering evidence found the appellant guilty of the offences as aforesaid and sentenced him to jail. His earlier application for the same relief was dismissed as withdrawn.Therefore, we have heard rival submissions at length and perused the record.

After going through evidence of Sushila Bai (PW-3) andRaj Kumar (PW-4), we are of the view that no case for suspension of custodial sentence is made out.

Accordingly, the application (I.A. No.7109/2013) stands rejected and closed. The other I.A. Nos. 9891/2016, 10146/2016 and 10145/2016 have become infructuous and therefore, no order is required."

It is clear that this court has taken into account the statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4 on which heavy reliance is placed today. Another application of appellant was rejected on merits on 18.11.2016. As per prosecution story the appellant is main accused. Deceased himself lodged the First Information Report which is treated as dying declaration by the court below.

In view of said dying declaration, nature of injuries, no case is made out for suspension of sentence. I.A. is rejected.