IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 10311 of 2022 (ARUN KUMAR DWIVEDI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 02-05-2023 Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Ms Neerja Agrawal -

Advocate for appellant No.1.

Shri L.A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

I.A.No.6875/2023 has been moved on behalf of appellant No.1 praying therein that sentence awarded to the appellant vide judgment dated 02.11.2022 although suspended by this Court but conviction and sentence is required to be stayed for the reasons mentioned in the application.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the offence was registered on 01.09.2003 in regard to the incident happened on 02.09.2002 that one dead body which came for postmortem had been taken away by some persons forcibly and in the said incident crime was registered as Crime No.95/2002 under Section 380 of IPC. When Head Constable Shri Ugrasen Shukla had gone for conducting investigation then mob restrained him from doing so and created hurdle in his official discharge of duties and on his report Crime No.96/2022 was registered under Sections 147, 341, 353, 294 of IPC. He had also gone with the police team on spot where public in rage were clamouring and conducting Chakka-jam for fulfillment of demand that Dr. Abhimanyu Singh should be suspended inasmuch as he refused to conduct autopsy of deceased Mahesh and kept the body in mortuary for two days. The offence was registered against numerous persons because those persons were agitating against the conduct of Government Officers and were sloganeering in the police station. In the turmoil, there was unbridled damage caused by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR mob to the government property and the police while controlling the mob also ordered for lathi-charge. In such chaotic incident, various persons including some policemen sustained injuries. The public agitation was such violent and beyond the control that the police had to make air-fires to control the mob and finally offence was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 333, 427, 342, 436, 506-B, 307 of IPC and Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Pubic Property Act. The trial was commenced and finally vide judgment dated 02.11.2022, 48 persons have been convicted and sentenced including appellant No.1.

Of a note, by order dated 22.12.2022 appeal was admitted and the sentence awarded to appellant No.1 was suspended exercising the power under Section 389 of CrPC.

Appellant No.1 has moved this application saying that he is a public leader and holding various posts in rulling party since 1999 till now. Learned senior counsel submits that in ensuing election of Legislative Assembly, it is every likelihood that appellant No.1 will be nominated as a candidate for contesting election. Shri Agrawal submits that looking to the age of the appellant and his long political career, this is high time when he can be bestowed opportunity to contest the election, however, if conviction which appellant is suffering is not stayed then his name will not be nominated by the rulling party for upcoming election of Legislative Assembly under the garb of hovering conviction and he would be declared ineligible to contest the election. To reinforce his stand, he places reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in re Lok Prahari v. Election Commission of India and others (2018) 18 SCC 114; Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab (2007) 2 SCC 574; Shyam Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR Narain Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 8 SCC 909; State of Maharashtra v. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar (2012) 12 SCC 384; Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (1995) 2 SCC 513 and K.C. Sareen v. CBI (2001) 6 SCC 584 saying that the Supreme Court has observed that under Section 389 CrPC the appellate court is not only empowered to suspend the sentence but is also empowered to stay the conviction and as per learned counsel, in view of the consiste