Teju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10741 MP

                                        --1--




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE

                           CRA No. 12124 of 2022
                       (TEJU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)



Dated : 12.07.2023

      Shri Durgesh Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
      Shri Gaurav Singh Chouhan- Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of Advocate General.

      Heard on I.A. No.16378/2022, which is the first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
filed on behalf of the appellant- Teju.
(2)   The appellant has been convicted by the 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Manawar in S.T. No.587/2020 vide judgment dated 30.06.2022
and sentenced as under:-
         Conviction                             Sentence

       Section   Act     Imprisonment       Fine if deposited Imprisonment in
                                            details           lieu of fine

       302       IPC     Life imprisonment 5000/-              2 months
                                                               additional R.I.


(3)   As per prosecution story, on 15.03.2020 the complainant-Chandan
filed a complaint at PS-Manawar to the effect that at about 05.40 A.M. he
heard the sound of quarrelling so he rushed to check the 3 rd floor where
his tenant Ranu, who was a prison guard, was living. The complainant
knocked on her door but nobody opened it, at the same time Ranu's
                                      --2--




friend- appellant Teju broke the window of her house and ran away. The
complainant- Chandan feeling suspicious tried to see from the ventilation
of the deceased house where he saw that the deceased Ranu was lying on
the floor with blood all over her body and not even she was moving. So
he broke the lock and entered the room where he saw that there are so
many wounds on Ranu's body and rope was tied on her neck.
(4)   Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has
not properly appreciated the evidence and there are so many
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecutrix. Learned
counsel further submits that the trial court failed to prove the case against
the appellant as there was no eye witness in this case. The complainant-
Chandan has not supported the prosecution story. The conviction is based
solely on the basis of FSL report and DNA report which is not sufficient
to convict the appellant. He further submits that final hearing of the
appeal will take a long time and looking to the period of sentence which
the appellant has suffered so far, the application for suspension of
sentence be allowed.
(5)   Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer for

grant of bail.

(6) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (7) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that the mobile seized from the spot was having finger print of the appellant and DNA report matches with the appellant and considering Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6 and paragraph Nos.23, 24 and 55 of the judgment of the trial court, it is found that there are sufficient

--3--

circumstantial evidences against the appellant, hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to grant benefit of suspension of sentence and bail to the appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.16378/2022 is rejected.

        (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI )                                    (HIRDESH)
            JUDGE                                                   JUDGE



    N.R.




Digitally signed by
NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Date: 2023.07.13
18:37:17 +05'30'