Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application for the suspension of the jail sentence under Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) where the appellant was convicted for creating communal discord during ‘Sinhast’, a significant religious event at Ujjain, a single-judge bench comprising of Vijay Kumar Shukla, J., while acknowledging the gravity of the offense and its potential to disrupt public peace and the prosecution’s establishment of the case against the appellant, including through witness identifications and forensic evidence, affirmed the appellant’s conviction.
In the instant matter, the appellant, who was convicted under various sections of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Explosive Substance Act, filed a second application for suspension of jail sentence under Section 389(1) of the CrPC after withdrawing the first application. The impugned conviction stemmed from an incident on 18-03-2016 where a person entered a hostel under a false identity, leaving behind a bag containing explosive substances. Police were alerted, and upon investigation, seized the bag along with various incriminating items. The appellant and a co-accused were implicated in the case.
The appellant contended that crucial evidence, such as CCTV footage, was not produced, thus creating doubts about the prosecution’s case. The appellant also questioned the basis of identification by witnesses, citing procedural flaws and reliance on delayed identification parades. The appellant further highlighted inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and challenged the failure to locate the alleged impersonated individual. However, the respondent countered by asserting that the identification parades were conducted properly and that forensic evidence, including a positive report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), supported the prosecution’s case. The prosecution produced call details indicating collusion between the appellant and the co-accused. The prosecution further argued that the motive behind the crime, to incite communal disturbance, was evident from the evidence, including the forged documents found at the scene.
The Court, while emphasising on the seriousness of the offense, aimed at creating communal discord during a significant religious event, refused to suspend the appellant’s jail sentence. The Court deemed the prosecution’s evidence, including witness identification and forensic reports, sufficient to establish guilt. The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding procedural irregularities and lack of explanation for police actions and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court dismissed the appellant’s application, finding no grounds for suspension of the jail sentence.
[Sushil v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 2515, order dated 24-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri R.S. Chhabra with Shri Aman Arora, Counsel for the Appellant
Shri Ajay Raj Gupta, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
