Rajkumar @ Chunku vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1568 MP

                                  1
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  CRA No. 22 of 2014
              (RAJKUMAR @ CHUNKU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Jabalpur, Dated : 03-02-2022
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Shivam, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Dilip Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for hearing.

Heard o n I.A. No.20793/2021, which is repeat (third) application

under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Rajkumar @ Chunku, who stands convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 02/12/2013 passed in S.T.No.128/2012 by Sessions Judge, Panna District - Panna (MP). Earlier applications were dismissed as withdrawn.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the whole case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances

is not complete in order to prove guilt of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. There is various contradictions and omissions in the statement of different prosecution witnesses, therefore, they are not trustworthy. The case of the prosecution is based upon conjectures and surmises. Necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 302 of IPC are completely missing. The appellant has already suffered more than 10 years of jail sentence and final hearing of the appeal will take time in this Covid Pandemic Era. Hence, the remaining jail sentence of present appellant may be suspended.

T h e prayer is opposed by Shri Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer by contending that there is two eye witnesses of the alleged incident namely Kalli Bai (PW-8) and Chhotelal Lodh (PW-9), who have supported the

prosecution case and their statement is corroborated by the medical evidence so also by the statement of Dr. S.R. Sharma (PW-10). Thus, there is sufficient evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the alleged offence, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the role attributed to the appellant and gravity of offence, no

case for suspension of sentence is made out. Accordingly, IA No. 20793/2021 is dismissed.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

                                          (SUJOY PAUL)                                    (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                             JUDGE                                               JUDGE

                                    skt




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR
TIWARI
Date: 2022.02.04 10:22:01 IST