Pappusingh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3163 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 6460 of 2021 (PAPPUSINGH TOMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 21-02-2023 Shri Manish Datt - Senior Counsel with Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate

for the appellant.

Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.

Heard on IA No.19604 of 21 for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Pappusingh Tomar.

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of IPC to undergo RI for Life and fine of Rs.1000/- vide judgment dated 30th September 2021 delivered in S.T. No.28 of 2019.

As per prosecution story, the Inspector Rajesh Tiwari of P.S. Mandideep received an information on 22.3.2019 from Dial-100 that somebody has been murdered and his body is lying between Bhopal -Kolar Road and village Tumdakheda. The Police reached the place where body was lying. The brother of deceased- Sandeep Tomar, i.e. the complainant -Nilesh Tomar had reached the place before the Police. Nilesh Tomar lodged a Dehati Nalishi that his

brother Sandeep Tomar left his house at around 11.30 am on his blue motorcycle at 12 o'clock. Thereafter, he received the information of his death through 108 Ambulance.

Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is co-brother of deceased -Sandeep Tomar. As per prosecution story there is no eye witness to the incident. Para-10 of the impugned judgment shows that the appellant was held guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Memorandum of appellant prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is Signature Not Verified Signed by: BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Signing time: 2/22/2023 10:25:36 AM

one such circumstance, on the strength of which an iron 'baka' and a motorcycle of deceased were recovered at the instance of the appellant. It is submitted that the weapon was recovered from an open place accessible to all and, therefore, such recovery does not improve the case of the prosecution.

The call detail of the appellant which shows that he was around same area where the incident had taken place is of no evidentiary value because so many persons must have been there in the similar area. The FSL report also does not improve the case of the prosecution because incriminating portion of FSL report was not specifically put to question by the Court below.

Learned Government Counsel opposed the prayer on the basis of

objection.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The weapon, i.e. 'baka' was recovered from a jungle wherein it was hidden under a stone. Thus, prima facie, it cannot be said that such an open place which was accessible to all. Considering the gruesome nature of crime and without expressing any conclusive opinion on merits of the case at this stage we are not inclined to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant

- Pappusingh Tomar.

Resultantly, IA No.19604 of 21 is dismissed.

                                (SUJOY PAUL)                              (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
                                   JUDGE                                           JUDGE

                          bks




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 2/22/2023
10:25:36 AM