Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lolli @ Loliya @ Rakesh Choudhary vs State Of M.P on 5 January, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 CRA-4195-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 4195 of 2020
(LOLLI @ LOLIYA @ RAKESH CHOUDHARY Vs STATE OF M.P)
Jabalpur, Dated : 05-01-2022
Shri. K.N.Fakhruddin, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Dilip Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.5429/2021, an application filed under Section 389
of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
the appellant Lolli @ Loliya @ Rakesh Choudhary.
T he appellant has filed this present appeal against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 05/03/2020 awarded by the Session
Judge, Satna, District Satna (MP) in S.T. No.204/2018 whereby the
appellant/accused has been convicted under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo RI for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-
and RI for five years with fine of Rs.2000/- respectively, with default
stipulation clause as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely
arraigned. The marg intimation was given on 06/11/2016. The body of
deceased 'Betu' was digged out by police and in turn postmortem was
conducted. No definite opinion was given in the postmortem report regarding
the cause of death of the deceased. The body was decomposed. The
appellant is solely convicted on the basis of extra judicial confession which is
a weak piece of evidence in view of judgment of Supreme Court passed in the
case of Shahdevan vs. State of T.N., reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403 and
Vinod @ Manoj vs. The State of Haryana, passed in CRA No.1822/2011
on 23/10/2019. There is no legal evidence on the strength of which the
appellant can be held guilty. There is no iota of evidence to show that the hut
wherein body of deceased was found belongs to present appellant. In this
view of the matter, remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by counsel for the respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
As per prosecution story, body of deceased 'Betu' was found beneath
Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY
Date: 2022.01.06 13:05:00 IST
2 CRA-4195-2020
the ground in a hut. As per the prosecution story, the extra judicial confession
became the reason for conviction. During the course of argument, Shri
Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the appellant produced 2015 (10) SCC 453
and urged that this judgment was wrongly cited by the Court below and there
is no such relevant judgment as per the said citation.
The Apex Court in the case of Shahdevan vs. State of T.N., 2012
(6) SCC 403 opined as under :-
"(i) The extra judicial confession is a weak evidence
by itself. It has to be examined by the Court with
greater care and caution.
(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be
truthful.
(iii) It should inspire confidence.
(iv) An extra judicial confession attains greater
credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by
a chain of cogent circumstances and is further
corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
(v) For an extra judicial confession to be the basis of
conviction, it should not suffer from any material
discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like
any other fact and in accordance with law."
(Emphasis supplied)
The same principle is followed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Vinod @ Manoj (supra).
In view of aforesaid judgments, a strong prima facie case is made out
by the appellant. Thus, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the
merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence
of appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.5429/2021 is allowed. Execution of jail sentence
of the appellant Lolli @ Loliya @ Rakesh Choudhary is hereby
suspended and it is ordered that the appellant be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY
Date: 2022.01.06 13:05:00 IST
3 CRA-4195-2020
of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court,
Satna on 27/6/2022 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial
Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
manju
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY
Date: 2022.01.06 13:05:00 IST
