Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2023
Author: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 4602 of 2020
(RAHUL KUSHWAH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 03-03-2023
Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.6379/2022 which is second application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of both the appellant No.2 Smt. Rashmi.
Earlier I.A. was for the purpose of temporary bail during Covid period.
The appellant No.2 Smt. Rashmi has been found guilty for the offence
302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentence to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of
Rs.5000/-, with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 1.11.2016 an incident
had taken place and the FIR was also registered on the same day. As per the
c as e of prosecution, the appellant and her husband were traveling on a
motorcycle and at that time, they stopped mid-way to answer nature's call when
two unknown assailants came on a motorcycle and shot at the husband and also
assaulted him with a Farsa resulting in his death. Investigation reveals that the
main accused Rahul was the person who fired at the deceased and the witness
to the same is PW-4 Laxmi Prasad and PW-3 Lalta who say that they were
passing by and they saw Rahul who was traveling ahead of them, shooting at
the deceased. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that 161
Cr.P.C. statements of the said witnesses are taken on the second day after the
incident. He further says that their testimony is weak and unbelievable because it
does not show the normal course of human conduct of a person who has seen
heinous crime being committed in front of his eyes and witness says that he
went home on the same day and the next day thereafter went and informed the
police about it. Further, he says that there are certain calls detail record which
shows that there were three conversations on the same day between the
appellant and the main accused and that appellant had not spoken to anyone
else from her mobile phone on the date of incident goes to make her complicit
under Section 302/34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the State while opposing the application for
suspension and grant of bail submits that the judgment passed by the learned
Court below is a well reasoned judgment and has taken into consideration
material circumstances into consideration while holding the appellant guilty. In
this regard he says that the weapon that was seized from the main accused
Rahul was sent for forensic verification which connects him to the crime, and
that coupled with the statements of PW-3 and PW-4, though delayed, does not
go to weaken the substratum of the prosecution's case.
Be that as it may.
Looking to the nature of evidence which is purely circumstantial and the
allegations of romantic relationship between the appellant herein and the main
accused which according to learned counsel for the appellant has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt as the witnesses only allege that there was a
relationship but none of them say that they have ever seen the appellant and the
co-accused in a compromising position in order to arrive at a conclusion that
they were romantically in life.
Be that as it may. Looking to the evidence, facts and circumstances of
the case and what has been argued at considered herein above, I.A.
No.6379/2022 is allowed. It is directed that the appellant No.2 shall be enlarged
on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court.
C.C. as per rules.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
(alok)
ALOK KUMAR
2023.03.03 17:09:24 +05'30'
