Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudama Singh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11877 of 2022
(SUDAMA SINGH RATHORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 20-06-2023
Ms. Anjana Kuraria - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.N. Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent-State of
M.P.
Heard on I.A. No.23904 of 2022 for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to appellant - Sudama Singh Rathore arising out of judgment dated
29/11/2022 delivered in Sessions Trial No.12/2019 by Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Anuppur (MP).
This appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life time with fine of Rs.3000/- and R.I. for
seven years with fine of Rs.2000/- respectively, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant remained in
custody from 14.09.2018 to 16.04.2021 and from the date of impugned
judgment dated 29.11.2022 he is again in custody.
By taking this Court to the prosecution story, it is alleged that appellant
allegedly murdered his mother Munni Bai and in support of that the main case
of prosecution is based on FSL report. It is alleged that in the hand of Munni
Bai certain hairs were found, which were ultimately found to be of appellant as
per the FSL report. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant
raised his voice against his employer Moser Baer Company, because of which a
case was registered against him. The allegation of police was that during the
agitation against the employer, the appellant was carrying a pistol and tried to
assault the police. Pooran I.O. (PW/18) in his cross-examination admitted the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 6/21/2023
11:06:33 AM
same. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since police had an ill-will
against the appellant, he was falsely arraigned. The prosecution story shows that
photographs of dead body of Munni Bai were taken. No photograph was filed
to establish that she was carrying hairs of appellant in her hand. The witnesses
to "Body Panchayatnama" turned hostile and candidly deposed that they did
not see that in hands of the dead body any hair was found. Heavy reliance is
placed by Ms. Kurariya on Ex.P/12 (property seizure memo) to submit that in
item No.4, the last line is a subsequent addition/interpolation as an afterthought.
If the size of letters and handwriting is minutely examined in juxtaposition to the
other contents of the said document, it will be clear that it was an interpolation
by the police in order to arraign the appellant.
The appellant's hair sample was taken by Doctor in the presence of
police cop Ranjeet Singh. Ranjeet Singh did not enter the witness box to
support the same. Thus, it is highly doubtful as to whether any such seizure was
made. Anil Singh Paraste (PW/15) has pleaded ignorance about contents of
material, which were handed over to him in the sealed packet. Thus, it is highly
doubtful whether appellant's hairs were found in the hand of the deceased. The
Court below without examining these material aspects, mechanically relied upon
the prosecution story. In support of her submission, Ms. Kurariya placed
reliance on the Apex Court judgment in case of Rajkumar Singh @ Raju @
Batya vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal Nos.931-932 of 2009
decided on 06.05.2013).
To oppose the same, Shri A.N. Gupta, Government Advocate supported
the impugned judgment and placed reliance on para 15 of the judgment.
We have heard the parties at length.
Signature Not Verified
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 6/21/2023
11:06:33 AM
conclusive opinion on merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.23904 of 2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant - Sudama Singh Rathore is hereby
suspended and it is directed that this appellant be released on bail on his
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 Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court,
Anuppur on 11/09/2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the
trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
rj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 6/21/2023
11:06:33 AM
