Narendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1544 MP

         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                        Cr.A.No.2239/2019
                        Cr.A.No.3517/2019

Gwalior, Dated : 23.04.2021
     Heard through Video-conferencing.

     Shri Prem Singh Bhadouria, Advocate for the appellant in

Cr.A.No.2239/2019.

     Shri Pradeep Katare, Advocate for the appellants in

Cr.A.No.3517/2019.

     Shri   Ankur    Modi,    Government     Advocate     for   the

respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.9634/2021, which is the second application

for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant

Anuj Singh Rajawat in Cr.A.No.2239/2019 and I.A.No.9700/2020,

which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of

bail on behalf of appellant No.2 Banti alias Brajendra in

Cr.A.No.3517/2019.

Each of the appellants have been convicted under Sections

302/34 & 201/34 of IPC and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with

fine of Rs.10,000/- & R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-

respectively with default stipulations vide judgment dated

23.02.2019 passed in S.T.No.600191/2012 by Fourth Additional

Sessions Judge, Morena, District Morena.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is

that there is no evidence against the present appellants and they

-:- 2 -:-

have been convicted only upon relying the recovery of one

Danda at the instance of accused Banti allegedly blood

stained from an open place and also recovery of one lower

and one danda, towel from the dickey of the car at the

instance of accused Narendra. It is contended that the

attesting witness to the aforesaid recovery was PW-5

Jawahar Singh and another attesting witness PW-6 Dinesh

Singh, have both turned hostile and not supported the case

of the prosecution. Apart from the recovery, there is no other

evidence against the accused-appellants. The motive

attributed to the accused- appellants is also very weak as it

has been alleged by the prosecution that deceased was

tenant in the house of accused-appellant and that he has not

paid the rent for about a year. According to the learned

counsel for the appellants, the real dispute was between

Suman (PW4), who happens to be wife of the younger

brother of deceased Sitaram and another younger brother of

deceased namely Shrikishan. Initially, deceased Sitaram,

who had been staying with Suman for quite some time, had

executed a will in favour of Ramu S/o Suman but

subsequently he cancelled the said will and executed

another will in favour of his younger brother Shrikishan. But

the police has completely left that aspect, which even

-:- 3 -:-

otherwise stands on shaky ground due to attesting witnesses

turning hostile, untouched during the investigation. Mere

recovery, cannot be made basis for conviction unless it finds

corroboration of other circumstantial evidence. It is

contended that in order to base conviction of the accused-

appellants solely on the circumstantial evidence every single

hypothesis that may be compatible with the innocence of the

accused has to be ruled out, whereas in the present case,

there are very many such circumstances which are

compatible with the innocence of the accused-appellants.

The appellants are already behind the bars for more than 2½

years and the accused-appellants were on bail during the

pendency of the trial. The hearing of the appeals is likely to

take time. On these premise, the learned counsel for the

appellants pray for suspension of sentence and grant of bail

on behalf of the appellants.

Mr. Ankur Modi, learned counsel appearing for the

State opposed the applications for suspension of sentence

and grant of bail.

Having regard to the rival submissions made and

considering the totality of the circumstances and evidence

on record but without expressing any opinion on the merits

of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the applications

-:- 4 -:-

(I.A.No.9634/2021 & 9700/2020) and suspend the sentence

awarded to the appellants.

It is directed that the remaining part of the jail sentence

imposed upon the appellants shall remain suspended and

they shall be enlarged on bail upon their furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand

Only) each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance

before the registry of this Court on 15.11.2021 and on all

dates of hearing unless otherwise directed.

The jail authorities shall have the appellants checked

by the jail doctor to ensure that they are not suffering from

the corona-virus and if they are, they shall be sent to the

nearest hospital designated by the State for treatment. If not,

they shall be transported to their place of residence by the

jail authorities.

Certified copy as per rules.

                (Mohammad Rafiq)                            (Sanjay Dwivedi)
                  Chief Justice                                 Judge

         Digitally signed by SUDESH
sudesh
         KUMAR SHUKLA
         Date: 2021.04.24 17:29:00
         +05'30'