Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishan @ Pappu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 8855 of 2019
(KISHAN @ PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-02-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Ashwani
Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants.
Smt. Nalini Gurung, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.1720/2021, which is first application under Section
389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed
on behalf of appellants, who stands convicted under Section 302 and 302/34
of the IPC respectively and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with
fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/-each and appellant Nos. 1 and 2 for offence
punishable under Section 460 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten
years and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/- each and all appellants under
Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to
pay fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/-each vide judgment dated 27/09/2019 passed
in S.T.No.16/2012 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District -
Balaghat (MP).
Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that although the
matter relates to murder of four persons namely, Mamta Bai, Sanjna,
Ghanaram and Arun, however, there is no eye witness of the alleged incident
and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is also
submitted that the appellants were not last seen together in the company of
the deceased. It is further submitted that from the articles alleged to have
been recovered from the possession of the appellants, in some articles
blood was found; whereas in some articles human blood was found,
however there is no evidence available on record to show that the blood
found on these articles have been matched with the blood sample of deceased
persons. The prosecution has also not conducted DNA test in this regard. As
per postmortem report of deceased persons conducted by Dr. Smt. Vivek
PW-2, Dr. Omprakash Nag PW-45, dead body of the deceased were found
decomposed and their internal organs were found sphacelated. Although, the
prosecution disclosed the motive of offence, a dispute of of partition of land
between deceased Dhanaram and appellant No.2-Bhagwat, however, the
prosecution itself filed and prove Exhibit P/8 agreement with regard to
settlement of dispute executed on 04/12/2010 much before the date of
missing of the deceased i.e. 04/10/2011, thus, there is no motive at all on the
date of incident available to appellants to commit the murder of the deceased.
In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has
invited the attention of this Court to the testimony of Gyaniram PW-1,
Bhusingh PW-6, Pawan- PW-13, Sakharam PW-21, Radhelal PW-22,
Jhanaklal PW-23, Eman Bai PW-25, Brajlal PW-61 and T.C. Panwar- PW-77.
The prosecution searched the house of the deceased on 05/10/2011 by
Bhagchan PW-6- Head Constable of Police Station Lalbarra, however, at that
time he has not found blood in the entire house. Subsequently, on
12/10/2011, another Police Officer of police station Lalbarra again searched
the same house and collected the blood. It is pertinent to note that the key of
the house of the deceased was handed over to the proposed accused
Gyaniram PW-1 on 05/10/2011. Although, there is a dispute regarding date of
incident, however, prosecution has not send the dead body for Anatomy
department for conclusive findings about duration of death in view of
statements of Dr. Smt. Vivek PW-2. There is a delay of 2 months in
recording the statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. and the prosecution has not given any plausible explanation in this
regard. Neither in the marg intimation report, FIR nor in the inquest, the
appellants were named as suspected. The appellants have already suffered
more than 2 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 appellants may be suspended.
The prayer is opposed by Smt. Nalini Gurung, learned Panel Lawyer
by contending that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence is based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary
evidence. It is also submitted that on the basis of testimony the prosecution
witnesses namely, Pannalal PW-3, Raju PW-4, Sheikh Nizamuddin PW-5,
Babulal PW-7, Pawan PW-8, Arvind PW-12, it is apparent that the appellants
were found present near the place of occurrence, there is a land dispute
between the appellants family and the deceased persons and the appellants
were remain absconded for some time. At the instance of appellant No.2-
Bhagwat one iron rod and one spade were recovered as Ex. P/13. Appellant
No. 1-Kisan @ Pappu in his memorandum Ex. P/14, accepted that he has
thrown the blood stained clothes and mobile phone in the canal and pond
respectively. According to FSL report dated 02/12/2011, human blood was
found on the articles alleged to have been recovered at the instance of
appellants. Appellants had tried to eradicate the articles relating to the alleged
offence and no plausible explanation has been offered by the defence in this
regard. Under these circumstances, there is sufficient evidence available on
record to connect the appellants with the alleged offence. Hence, the
appellants are not entitled for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case
coupled with the role attributed to the appellants and gravity of offence, no
case for suspension of sentence is made out. Accordingly, IA No. 1720/2021
is dismissed.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI
2022.02.09 11:06:09 +05'30'
