Madhya Pradesh High Court
Phool Singh @ Bhool Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 July, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1927-2021
(PHOOL SINGH @ BHOOL SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 22-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mamta Shandilya, GA for the respondent / State.
Heard on IA No.5961/2021 which is first application filed on
behalf of appellant Phool Singh under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for
grant of bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence.
Appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as
under :
Conviction Sentence Fine of Rs. In lieu of fine
302 of IPC Life Rs. 5000/- Six months S.I
Imprisonment
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire
prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and no direct
evidence is available on record against the appellant. The prosecution
did not prove motive of the offence. Only on the basis of the suspicion,
the appellant has been falsely implicated in this offence. There are
material contradictions in the statement of the seizure witnesses and it
is not proved that the deceased was strangulated by the appellant.
The police did not seize any object which is allegedly used for
strangulation. Learned Trial Court did not consider the statement of
PW-6 Sandeep, who was with the deceased and the appellant. Actually
at the time of the incident, the deceased and the appellant were going
on their motorcycle and met with road accident. The treating doctor
Vijay also admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant was
intoxicated. The trial Court has erroneously relied upon DNA report.
The chain of events regarding circumstantial evidence is not proved.
Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail and
suspension of execution of jail sentence of the appellant Phoolsingh.
Per-contra, learned GA for the respondent/state has opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
From perusal of the impugned judgment and evidence available
on record, it is clear that cause of death of the deceased is duly proved
by Dr. Nabil Ahmad PW-10, who has conducted postmortem of the
deceased. In his opinion, the deceased died due to throttling, as a
result of strangulation and cardiac respiratory attack. The aforesaid
medical evidence is well supported by DNA profile report ( Ex-P/23).
The appellant did not challenge the DNA report during the cross-
examination of the concerned witnesses and also in the accused
statement. The Investigating Officer and other witnesses stated that
no damage has been found to the concerned motorcycle, which was
being used by the deceased and the appellant at the time of the
incident. The appellant did not produce any cogent evidence regarding
his plea of defence about accidental death of the deceased. The
motive is duly proved by the statement of Battu PW-2, Samdibai PW-7
and Kanaksingh PW-3. There is no serious contradictions between the
ocular and medical evidence.
On due consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case and also keeping in view the nature of the offence,
material evidence on record, without commenting upon the merits of
the case, we are not inclined to allow the application.
Accordingly, I.A. no.5961/2021 fails and is hereby dismissed.
C c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL ) ( ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by AMOL N
MAHANAG
Date: 2021.07.23 16:21:34
+05'30'
