Santosh Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13101 MP

                                   1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT JABALPUR
                           CRA No. 7189 of 2018
               (SANTOSH CHOUDHARY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 11-08-2023
      Shri R.S. Mehndiratta - Advocate for appellant.

      Shri Yogesh Dhande - Public Prosecutor for the State.

      Heard on I.A. No.17568 of 2022.
      This is the third application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
      The case of the prosecution is that on 26.11.2017 at about 9:10 p.m. the

deceased went to the house of the accused in order to take back the amount
that the accused had borrowed from him. A tussle took place. The accused
assaulted various injuries on the deceased. Thereafter the deceased was taken to
hospital. On 03.12.2017 he succumbed to his injuries. On trial, the accused was
convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for Life and
fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
      Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed
to make out a case against the accused. That there are no eyewitnesses to the
incident. That even if the M.L.C. report would be seen in comparison with the

postmortem report, it cannot be said that the deceased succumbed to the
injuries that were inflicted on him by the accused. Hence, he pleads for grant of
bail. The same is disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
      On hearing learned counsels, we do not find it a fit case to grant bail. The
statements of the deceased had been clearly recorded. He has clearly narrated
the acts committed by the accused and the injuries that he has sustained. The
contention of the accused that the injury shown in the postmortem report
cannot form the cause of death, in our considered view, is only an argument. It
                                                   2
            is the opinion of the doctor alone which would clarify the same. Apparently,
            such a question has not been asked to the doctor. Therefore, whether he
            succumbed to the injuries that have been caused or for any other reason, can be
            stated only by an expert. Unfortunately, that has not been asked. In the absence
            of the same, it can be presumed at this stage that the death was due to the
            injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, we do not find that the counsel
            could argue in relation to the injuries sustained and the cause of death. The
            material on record would clearly indicate that as many as 10 injuries have been
            caused by accused on the deceased. Hence, we do not find any ground to
            enlarge him on bail.

                       I.A. No.17568 of 2022 is accordingly dismissed.


                      (RAVI MALIMATH)                                    (VISHAL MISHRA)
                        CHIEF JUSTICE                                         JUDGE

psm

Digitally signed by PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2023.08.12 04:07:16 -07'00'