Deepak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6544 MP

                                1         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
                                                     BENCH AT INDORE
                                                      CRA No.7614/2019
                                           Deepak S/o Gokul Dhangar Vs. State of MP

                                Indore: Dated:- 20/10/2021
                                      Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                      Shri Valmik Shakargaye, learned Panel Prosecutor for the State.

                                1.

Heard on IA No.874/2021, which is first application filed under

Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of

bail moved on behalf of the appellant - Deepak S/o Gokul Dhangar.

2. The conviction and sentence of the appellant - Deepak S/o

Gokul Dhangar is as under:

Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu of Fine 302 IPC Life imprisonment 5,000/- 2 years R.I. 449 IPC 10 years R.I. 3,000/- 1 year R.I. 3(2)(v) SC ST Life imprisonment 5,000/- 2 years R.I.

Act

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the whole case of

prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The Dehati Nalishi

was recorded on the same date of incident against an unknown person.

The appellant was subsequently arraigned but there was no basis for

implicating the present appellant. As per prosecution case, the blood

stained clothes, shoes and weapon namely "Darata" were recovered

from the appellant but as per the FSL report it is only proved that

human blood was available on said clothes and the weapon. The

prosecution could not establish that the human blood was of the Signature Not Verified SAN deceased. Thus there is no clinching legal evidence on the strength of Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2021.10.22 18:55:36 IST 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :

BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7614/2019 Deepak S/o Gokul Dhangar Vs. State of MP

which appellant could have been convicted, he may be granted bail by

suspending his remaining jail sentence.

4. The prayer is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the

basis of various paragraphs of the judgment.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we were

informed that complainant has already been served. As per the finding

of the court below, the human blood is found in the clothes of the

appellant and the weapon. As many as 77 injuries were found on the

person of the deceased. The last seen evidence, the conduct of the

appellant and no explanation about availability of human blood on

aforesaid articles became the reason for convicting the appellant.

6. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on

the judgment passed in case of Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju alias

Batya V/s. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court

3150 to submit that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take

the place of the proof. Reliance is also placed on the recent judgment

of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.852/2021 (Madhav

V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh) to contend that merely because

human blood was found on certain articles, the conviction is not

proper unless it is proved that such human blood is of the deceased.

7. In the opinion of this Court, the conduct of the appellant was a

Signature Not Verified relevant factor. The last seen evidence is also against him. The court SAN

Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2021.10.22 18:55:36 IST 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :

BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7614/2019 Deepak S/o Gokul Dhangar Vs. State of MP

below has relied on the case of John Pandian V/s. State

Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu reported in (2010)

14 Supreme Court Cases 129; wherein it was held that even if blood

group could not be detected because of disintigration of blood, it was

the obligation on part of the accused to explain how human blood was

found on the weapon and the clothes recovered from his possession.

The court below in the impugned judgment held that appellant has not

given any explanation about blood stained clothes recovered from him

in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

8. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider almost a

similar situation in Nana Keshav Lagad Vs. State of

Maharashtra reported in (2013) 12 SCC 721, wherein the trial

Court opined was reproduced as under :-

"His evidence also goes to prove that all these articles blood stained clothes etc., were sent to C.A. and as per the C.A. report Exh.61 the blood was detected on the clothes of the accused and deceased and this blood was human blood.......In the present case, though the C.A. report, Exh.61 shows that, the said human blood was of group "B", C.A. report Exh.62 about the blood sample of the accused states that, the blood group could not be ascertained as the results were inconclusive, moreover, there is no C.A. of the blood sample of the deceased to prove that, he was having blood group "B". However, the fact remains that, the stains of human blood were found on the clothes of accused Nana and he has not explained how this blood stains were on his clothes and therefore, as observed in this authority, it becomes one more highly Signature Not Verified SAN incriminating circumstance against the accused. "

Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2021.10.22 18:55:36 IST 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :

BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7614/2019 Deepak S/o Gokul Dhangar Vs. State of MP

The Apex Court poignantly held as under :-

"In fact, as rightly noted by the Trial Court, it was for the appellants to have explained as to how the clothes worn by them contained human blood. In Section 313 questioning, no explanation was forthcoming from the appellants. In these circumstances, the said contention also does not merit any consideration." (Emphasis supplied)

9. In this view of the matter and without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, no case for suspension is made out.

10. Accordingly, IA No.874/2021 stands dismissed.

CC as per rules.

                                     (SUJOY PAUL)                                (PRANAY VERMA)
                                        JUDGE                                         JUDGE

                                ns




Signature Not Verified
 SAN



Digitally signed by NEERAJ
SARVATE
Date: 2021.10.22 18:55:36 IST