Rasu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4130 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                        Cr.A. No.1595/2017
              (Rasu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
                                                                  -1-

Indore, dated 10/08/2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent / State.

Heard on I.A. No.5960/2021, which is first application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of the appellant - Rasu.

The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-

      Conviction                       Sentence
 Section Act          Imprisonment    Fine    If Imprisonment
                                      deposited in lieu of fine

   302     IPC        Life            10,000/-    6 months R.I.
                      Imprisonment

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the judgment of learned lower court is contrary to the law and facts on record. The wife of the deceased is only eye witness in the present case. Jairam PW-2; Jhetu PW-3; Udia PW-4 and Jabla PW-5 have stated that appellant was involved in the death of the deceased. But none of them was present at the time of incident. These witnesses were close relative of the deceased and therefore, their statement cannot be relied on. There are lot of material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. There are so many contradictions regarding the place of recovery of the weapon used for murder of the deceased. The case of prosecution is solely based HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.1595/2017 (Rasu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)

upon the suspicion. Prosecution has also failed to prove that whether the appellant was present at the scene of crime or not, under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.

Per contra, learned government advocate for the respondent/State opposes the application for suspension of execution of jail sentence and prays for its rejection. She submits that the judgment of conviction is based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. The eye-witnesses have proved this case beyond reasonable doubt, hence, no case is made out for grant of bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the overwhelming evidence regarding direct and indirect evidence coupled with the medical evidence, it cannot be said that there is no evidence available against the present appellant. Jablibai PW-1 is eye witness. Her statement is well supported by Jairam PW-2; Jhetu PW-3; Udia PW-4 and Jabla PW-

5. All these witnesses also stated that after hearing hue and cry, they rushed on the spot and saw that the deceased Naanka was lying down on the land in injured condition and the appellant ran away after seeing the witnesses on the spot.

The appellant has taken plea that the death of deceased was due to accident but such justification was not adduced at the time of cross-examination of PW-1 and accused statement of appellant.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.1595/2017 (Rasu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)

Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pradeep Narayan Madgonkar Etc. Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 1995 (4) SCC 255 and in the case of Govindaraju @ Govinda vs State By Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr reported in 2012 (4) SCC 722. But in this matter, prosecution case is based upon the evidence of eye witnesses, therefore, contradictions regarding place of recovery of weapon used in the murder is not material. During testimony, concerned doctor found 9 injuries and he categorically opined that the death of the deceased is homicidal.

Looking to the evidence available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for suspension of execution of jail sentence. Accordingly, I.A. No.5960/2021 is hereby rejected.

C.C. as per rules.

                          (Sujoy Paul)                         (Anil Verma)
                            Judge                                Judge


        N.R.

Digitally signed by
NARENDRA KUMAR
RAIPURIA
Date: 2021.08.12
19:33:54 +05'30'