Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuveer Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 5360 of 2022
(RAGHUVEER THAKUR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 24-11-2022
Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Yash Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No. 11504/2022, which is an application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1 Raghuveer Thakur,
appellant No.2 Tara Bai Khangar and appellant No.3 Bhuri Bai Thakur.
The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo RI for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-
respectively with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submit that as per prosecution story,
on 16.1.2019 the appellant caused injuries on the person of the deceased by the
means of 'lathi/ lakdi' because of which he died.
The court below nowhere mentioned that case of the prosecution is
based on circumstantial evidence. As per story, Vinod Kahar (PW-7), Sonu
Patel (PW-2) Santosh Vishwakarma (PW-3) were examined. Shri Jain submits
that para-57 of the impugned judgment shows that Basant Rajput (PW-1)
cannot be treated as an eye-witness. Para-7 of deposition of Sonu Patel (PW-2)
shows that he was also not eye-witness. Para-61 of the impugned judgment
makes it clear that Santosh Vishwakarma (PW-3) was also not an eye-witness.
Statement of Sonu Rajput (PW-4) in para-3 leaves no room for any doubt that
he is also not an eye-witness. Similarly Vinod Kahar (PW-7) is also not an eye-
witness as per his statement. Thus, there is no eye witness to the incident. The
'Lathi/ lakdi' allegedly recovered were sent to the FSL Laboratory but report
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/25/2022
10:51:54 AM
Ex./28 does not indicate whether any blood stains were found on the so called
weapon. The report only throws light on the earth/soil which was allegedly
collected from the seen of crime. Thus, their exists no eye-witness no FSL and
there exists no chain of circumstances on the strength which appellants'
conviction can get a stamp of approval from this Court. Final hearing of this
appeal may take time. It is a case of no legal evidence. Thus, the remaining jail
sentence of these appellants may be suspended.
Per-contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State
opposed the prayer on the basis of objection and drew our attention on para-28
of the impugned judgment wherein statement of Sonu @ Rajesh (PW-4) is
mentioned who deposed that on 16.1.2019 at around 2:30 O'clock during day
time there was a quarrel between the appellant and deceased. The incident of
assault had taken place admittedly at around 11:00 O'clock in the night on
16.1.2019.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and
the objection.
Considering the factual backdrop, in our opinion, a the case is made out
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to these appellants, without
expressing any conclusive opinion on merits of the case.
Accordingly, aforesaid IA is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant No.1 Raghuveer Thakur, appellant
No.2 Tara Bai Khangar and appellant No.3 Bhuri Bai Thakur are hereby
suspended and it is directed that the appellants be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand
only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/25/2022
10:51:54 AM
court with a further direction to appear before the trial court Gadarwara,
District Narsinghpur on 02.03.2023 and also on such other dates as may be
fixed by the trial court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
C c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ahd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/25/2022
10:51:54 AM
