Madhya Pradesh High Court
Phoolsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 4579 of 2021
(PHOOLSINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 08-02-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned GA for the State.
Heard on IA No.26927/2021, an application for suspension of sentence
on behalf of the appellant No.2 Tiniya.
Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30.07.2021
passed by ASJ, Jobat, district Alirajpur in Sessions Trial No.54/2019
whereby the trial court has convicted the appellant no.2 Tiniya for the offence
u/s 201 IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of
payment of fine further RI for 3 months.
As per prosecution story, the complainant Relibai R/o Kaluvat
Sukhaamba lodged a report that on 18.4.2019 her husband Indersingh after
taking dinner was sleeping inside the house then the accused/appellant
Phoolsingh came there and offered liquor to him and took with him. On the
next morning when her husband did not come back, she went to the house of
Phoolsingh in search of him but house of appellant no.1 was found locked.
Thereafter, on search the dead body of Indersingh was recovered from near
the Talab. On the basis of the said report an FIR was lodged for the offence
u/s 302, 201 & 34 of the IPC. During investigation Phoolsingh was arrested
by the police and his statement under section 27 of the Evidence was
recorded in which he has disclosed that after killing Indersingh he disposed of
the dead body with the help of his son i.e. Tinia, appellant No.2, hence he
was made accused u/s 201 IPC. Both the accused were tried u/s 302 & 201
IPC, however, appellant no.1 Phoolsingh has been convicted and sentenced
u/s 302 IPC but the appellant No.2 Tiniya has been convicted u/s 201 IPC
and sentenced to 7 years RI with fine amount.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant no.2 has
been falsely implicated on the basis of the memorandum statement of
Phoolsingh recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. No incriminating material
has been recovered from him by the police so as to connect him with the
crime in question. He has been made accused and convicted only on the
basis of the statement u/s 27 which is not admissible in evidence. The
appellant no.2 is aged about 20 years. He was on bail during trial and he did
not misuse the liberty granted by the court. The entire prosecution story is
concocted one. He has every hope of success in this appeal, hence prays for
suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail.
Learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments
advanced by the counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merit of
the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence
passed against the appellant no.2 Tiniya shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail upon his depositing the fine amount (if already not deposited)
and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11.07.2022
and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry
during the pendency of this appeal.
C.c as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
HARI KUMAR C G NAIR
2022.02.08 18:01:13
+05'30'
