Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsukh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 April, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 5168 of 2019
(RAMSUKH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 20-04-2023
Shri Rajendra Singh-Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari-Public Proseutor for respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A. No.17553/2022, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of sole
appellant-Ramsukh.
So far appellant is said to have undergone almost 11 years of jail
incarceration.
Appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and R.I. for 3
years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulations vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13/12/2013 passed by
Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Gwalior, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Special
Sessions Trial No.13/2012.
As per prosecution story, a report of missing person was lodged by
Bhanwar Singh H/o deceased Guddibai at Police Station Ghatigaon while Ex.P-
1 and endorsed Rojnamcha Shana No.2 whereunder it was stated that on
10/02/2012, deceased Guddibai W/o Bhanwar Singh at about 2:30-3 O'clock
had gone towards A.B. Road near Pachgani for grazing goats. However, she
did not return back by evening. Thereafter, during the course of investigation,
vide memorandum Ex.P-10 of accused Ramsukh, dead body of deceased was
recovered from jungle while Ex.P-11 and seizure memo was prepared vide
Ex.P-8. The statement of accused Ramsukh under Section 27 of the Evidence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 4/20/2023
4:40:10 PM
Act was recorded. Other co-accused persons namely Ravi and Ramswaroop
were apprehended. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged for offence under Section
302/149, 201 & 394 of IPC r/W Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act against all the
accused persons. During investigation, incriminating material were seized and
upon submission of challan, case was committed for sessions trial. The
Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of evidence placed on record has
convicted and sentenced the present appellant as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment submits that Sessions Court has not appreciated the evidence placed
on record in correct perspective. The judgment suffers from surmises and
conjectures. He further submits that in this case, neither there is any eyewitness
nor any seizure of the nature which could directly be connected with the alleged
crime. Its a case of circumstantial evidence. On the strength of the solitary
witness Purshottam (PW-8), the appellant has been convicted. Learned counsel
for appellant read out the deposition of Puroshottam (PW-8) and submitted that
he had only seen the appellant coming out of the jungle and nothing else. Such
statement, even if, read with the material collected, shall not lead to completion
of chain regard being had to law laid down by the Apex Court. Even otherwise,
appellant has already undergone almost 11 years of jail sentence. Appeal is of
the year 2019 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal. Hence,
prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to present appellant.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the impugned judgment submits that the
Sessions Court did not commit error of law and fact while convicted and
sentenced the appellant as aforesaid with submission that the blood-stain on the
Signature Not Verified
shirt of the present appellant and paint of co-accused Ravi were found to be of
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 4/20/2023
4:40:10 PM
human blood and that of the stone, not only of the human blood but also of the
same group as that of the deceased. Since the stone itself was seized at the
instance of the present appellant and therefore, the complicity of the appellant in
the instant case can not be ruled out and rightly been found proved by the
Sessions Court and therefore, no exception can be taken in the matter of grant
of bail to present appellant. However, learned State counsel fairly submits that
apart from the aforesaid evidence, there is no other evidence except that of
Purushottam (PW-8).
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, but regard being had to the fact that present appellant so far has
undergone almost 11 years of jail incarceration and that the appeal is of the year
2019 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal, this Court is of
the considered view that benefit of suspension of sentence may be extended to
present appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.17553/2022 stands allowed and it is directed that
jail sentence of sole appellant-Ramsukh shall remain suspended during
pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to
verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 22/06/2023
and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 4/20/2023
4:40:10 PM
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 4/20/2023
4:40:10 PM
