Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.229 OF 2017
(Rahul Prajapati vs State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 07.04.2021
Mr. Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. Amit Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
ORDER
Heard on IA No.2219/2021 which is an application for
urgent hearing of the case. Keeping in view the reasons
mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Accordingly,
IA No.2219/2021 stands disposed of.
Also heard on IA No.2220/2021 which is second
application under Section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
of appellant-Rahul Prajapati S/o Ramcharan Prajapati who
has been convicted by First Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora,
District-Rajgarh (MP) in Session Trial No.136/2016 vide
judgment dated 10.11.2016 and sentenced him as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Section & Act Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
364 of IPC 10 years RI Rs.5,000/- 02 Years RI
302 of IPC Life Rs.5,000/- 02 years RI
Imprisonment
201 of IPC 03 years RI Rs.2,000/- 09 Months RI
The first application for suspension was dismissed as
withdrawn by the Court on 27.09.2017.
The prosecution story in short was that the appellant and
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.229 OF 2017
(Rahul Prajapati vs State of Madhya Pradesh)
another co-accused had kidnapped 12 year old child and later
on murdered him and the reason for doing so was that the
deceased child had seen the co-accused in a compromising
position with his mother and he feared that the child would
divulge the incident.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was
no motive on the part of appellant, that there is no other
evidence apart from the last seen evidence and the evidence
putforth by the prosecution is not adequate for conviction.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has filed the
reply in which it has been stated that apart from the last seen
evidence, there is an evidence of memorandum and seizure
also pursuant to which cold drink bottle has been recovered at
the instance of appellant and that the cold drink laced with a
sedative which was offered to the deceased child who became
sedated and later on he was done to death by strangulation.
Submissions were considered.
Gajraj Singh (PW/1) and Virendra Sahu (PW/9) are the
witnesses of last seen. There is an evidence to the effect that
on the basis of memorandum of appellant, empty bottles of
cold drinks were recovered one of which gave positive test
regarding presence of sedative substance. The body of
deceased child was also exhumed as per memorandum of
appellant Rahul Prajapati.
In view of such circumstantial evidence available against
the appellant, no case is made out for grant of suspension to
the present appellant. Accordingly, IA No.2220/2021 stands
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.229 OF 2017
(Rahul Prajapati vs State of Madhya Pradesh)
rejected.
Record has been received.
Be listed for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arun/-
Digitally signed by
ARUN NAIR
Date: 2021.04.09
10:19:43 +05'30'
