Rameshchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1994 MP

                                   - : 1 :-
                                                         CRA No.2086/2020



HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
 (DIVISION BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND
              Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

                     CRA No. 2086 of 2020
                (Rameshchandra. V/s. State of M.P.)

Date : 20.05.2021 :
      Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

I.A. No.7999/2021 for suspension of sentence is taken up. The appellant is in custody because of his conviction arising out of judgment dated 13.2.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar, District Ujjain in S.T. No.560/2015, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under :

Section/Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu of fine.

302 of IPC Life imprisonment. 3,000/- Six months' RI. 201 of IPC Two years. 1,000/- Two months' RI.

203 of IPC One year. 500/- One month RI.

Shri Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that as per prosecution story, the appellant was travelling in a motor bike with his elder brother Prakashchandra. His brother Prakashchandra was murdered by three persons who had covered their faces. Resultantly, the appellant himself preferred two Dehati Nalisi on the same date, however, the police did not conduct proper investigation against suspects and on the contrary, accused the present appellant for murder, but there is no clinching evidence on the strength of which the appellant can be held guilty. The widow of the deceased - Deepika (P.W.1) and her son did not support the prosecution story. The "last seen" evidence is not trustworthy. The FSL report is inconclusive. Resultantly, the appellant deserves bail.

The prayer is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate by taking this Court to certain paragraphs of the judgment.

- : 2 :-

CRA No.2086/2020

Prima facie, it is seen that the incident had taken place in the presence of appellant. The appellant although lodged Dehati Nalisi, did not inform about the murder/incident to the family members including the widow of the deceased Prakashchandra. This unnatural conduct coupled with FSL report and last seen evidence became the main reason to convict the appellant and at this stage, we find no reason to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant. The I.A. is dismissed.

      ( SUJOY PAUL )                               ( VIVEK RUSIA )
         V. JJUDGE                                     V. JUDGE
Alok/-

      Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
      Date: 2021.05.20 19:29:16 +05'30'