Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 1237 of 2022
(SANJAY AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 23-02-2022
Shri R.K. Tamrakar with Shri Aishwary Sahu, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Darshan Soni, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
I.A. No.1986/2022 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to appellants is taken up. The present appellants have been convicted under
Section 302 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submit that as per the prosecution story,
Prakash has administer poisonous 'Rabdi' to the deceased. The appellants did not
administered the same. Neither 'Rabdi' nor vomit or stool of deceased was
collected for the purpose of sample examination. The viscera report does not
indicate existence of poison in the viscera. This Court in connected matter has
already suspended the jail sentence of Pradeep Sharma. Therefore, the remaining
jail sentence of these appellants who were convicted on the basis of insufficient
evidence may be suspended.
Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer for grant of bail by
contending that these appellants were identified in the Test Identification Parade
(TIP). The photographs of the deceased was found in possession of the appellant
Vijay. The presence of these appellants were very much there when 'Rabdi' was
administered.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
This Court in the case of Pradeep Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
in CRA No.1198/2022 has recorded as under :-
"Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the
prosecution story, poisonous 'Rabdi' was administered to the
deceased Rajesh because of which he died in the hospital.
However, as per the said story also, the present appellant is
not one of such persons who has actually administered the
poisonous 'Rabdi' to the deceased. Indeed, appellant is
projected as a mastermind of the entire conspiracy in which he
persuaded other co-accused Sanjay and Vijay to undertake the
aforesaid exercise of administrating poison to the deceased.
By taking this Court to para-23 of the judgment, Shri Prakash
Upadhyay submits that neither the sample of 'Rabdi' nor
sample of vomit and stool of deceased was collected for
examination. In absence thereof, it is not safe to conclude that
the 'Rabdi' was poisonous. In absence of establishing the
element of poison which was administered by the accused
persons, the whole foundation of the prosecution case
collapses.
In para-35 of the judgment, the Court below opined that there
is no eye-witness to the incidence. The circumstances on the
strength of which the appellant was held guilty are reduced in
writing in para-93 of the judgment. Criticizing the findings one
by one, Shri Upadhyay submits that even if there was previous
enmity between the family of the deceased and that of present
appellant, it is not a conclusive proof of the crime. Enmity,
Shri Upadhayay submits, is a double edged sword and in
absence of proving the case, enmity alone cannot be a ground
to hold the appellant as guilty. Same is the reason of attack to
findings No.2 and 3 of para-93 of the judgment.
Another reason for holding the appellant guilty is use of a
mobile which, in the opinion of the Court below, was
appellant's mobile. Reliance was placed on the statement of
Jitendra (PW-26). Shri Upadhyay submits that this statement
shows that Jitendra (PW-26) only saved the said cell phone
number in the name of Pradeep that alone cannot be a proof
that the said cell phone number belongs to the said appellant.
No scientific evidence or witness from mobile company was
produced to establish the ownership of the said sim/mobile
number by the appellant. The story of prosecution is based on
surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that the final hearing
of this appeal will take time, and appellant was on bail for
substantial period during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty, therefore the remaining jail sentence of the appellant
may be suspended.
Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer for grant
of bail by taking this Court to various paragraphs of the
judgment. He submits that the chain of substantial evidence
shows that appellant was indeed guilty and Court below has
not committed any error of fact or law in holding him guilty.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it
proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the present
appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1921/2022 is allowed.
S ub jec t to depositing the fine amount, (if not already
deposited and which shall not be disbursed as compensation
without leave of this Court), the remaining jail sentence of the
appellant is hereby suspended. The execution of jail sentence
of appellant -Pradeep Sharma is hereby suspended and it is
directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing
a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to
appear before the trial Court, Chindwara on 29.08.2022
and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial
court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules."
In view of the benefit of suspension of sentence given to the co-accused
Pradeep and in view of factual backdrop regarding non-establishing of poisonous
element, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of these
appellants as well.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1986/2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount, (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of the appellants is hereby suspended. The execution of jail
sentence of appellants -Sanjay and Vijay is hereby suspended and it is directed
that the appellants be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to
appear before the trial Court, Chindwara on 29.08.2022 and also on such
other dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard during the pendency of
this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Priya.P
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra
Date: 2022.02.24 12:43:07 IST
