Raghvendra Alias Mangu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5237 MP

                                  1
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                           CRA No. 818 of 2020
       (RAGHVENDRA ALIAS MANGU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 29-03-2023
      Shri B.K.Sharma-Advocate for appellants.

      Shri A.K.Nirankari-Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

Shri Anshu Gupta - Advocate for complainant.

Heard o n I.A.No.5440 of 2022, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of

appellant No.1-Raghvendra alias Mangu.

Appellant stands convicted under Section 364 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/-; under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 7000/-; under Section 201 of IPC to undergo three years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act to undergo three years' R.I with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations vide impugned judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed by Special Judge, MPDVPK Act, Sheopur in SC DOCT No.300007/2016.

As per prosecution story, complainant Leelawati Solanki, wife of Ramnarayan Solanki filed written complaint (Exhibit P-23) on 10.03.2016 that on 09.03.2016, her son Ashok Singh (since deceased), aged about 40 years, had gone to Karahal to attend a marriage ceremony. She was informed by one Mahaveer that outside the venue of marriage function, Ashok Singh was seen with Deep Singh @ Kallu Rajawat, Raghvendra Singh @ Mangu (present appellant) and 3-4 other persons. A dispute took place between them. Earlier also these persons had harassed the deceased Ashok Singh. On such

information received, the instant complaint was filed seeking indulgence of the police to recover deceased Ashok Singh. A missing report was lodged vide Exhibit P-24 on 10.03.2016. During investigation, it was revealed that Bihari Singh, brother of the deceased had talked to Raghvendra Singh @ Mangu on mobile and was informed that Ashok was slapped 2-4 times and thereafter was left near the shop of Parwat. Investigating Officer reached the spot of Chitransh Marriage Garden and during investigation, one Bajaj CT 100 motorcycle (belonging to deceased) and two pocket diaries near drain running along with the road were found. One diary had imprint of Bhartiya Janata Party Madhya Pradesh and second one of mud color was in a torn condition

whereunder some accounts were written regarding money transactions; both were seized. During investigation, statements of Kamlesh @ Baba, Smt. Leelawati, Bihari Singh Solanki, Rajendra Singh were recorded. It was further revealed that there was a dispute between the accused persons and deceased Ashok Singh over theft of cables and in that connection, the dispute had taken place at the marriage garden. It was further revealed that deceased Ashok Singh was thrown into Scorpio Vehicle and driven to an unknown destination where he was murdered. The enquiry report submitted was Exhibit P-43. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.20/2016 under Sections 364, 365 of IPC was registered vide Exhibit P-44 and again statements of Kamlesh @ Baba, Bihari Singh, Smt. Leelawati, Mukesh Sisodiya etc were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Kamlesh Singh @ Baba, Mukesh Sisodiya also recorded their statements under Section 164 of CrPC. Vide Exhibit P-4 (memorandum under Section 27 of Evidence Act), Raghvendra stated that deceased Ashok Singh was taken by them in Scorpio Vehicle No. MP04BC0111 forcibly and thereafter on Mudiya road near venta forest he was beaten to death by sticks and troliver.

His body was thrown in the bushes in forest. On such disclosure of fact by the present appellant, the dead body of deceased Ashok was recovered from the bushes. Marg Dehati Nalashi was registered as 0/16 (Exhibit P-5). Besides, hair found in the hand of the dead body of the deceased Ashok Singh was also seized vide Exhibit P-9 along-with other incriminating materials and empty beer bottle was seized vide Exhibit P-12. The Scorpio car disclosed in his statement was recovered from appellant No.1's house vide Exhibit P-25. Further, the shoe of the deceased Ashok Singh and a broken sim were also recovered from inside the Scorpio car and the same is marked as Exhibit.P-25. Based thereupon, the investigation was completed, challan was filed and the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial. The Trial Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record convicted the appellant and others and sentenced them as aforesaid.

Shri B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants while seeking suspension of sentence at the first instance submitted that case of appellant No.1 is at par with co-accused/appellant No.2 Aditya Singh, who has been extended the benefit of suspension of sentence by the Coordinate Bench on 22.10.2021. He also submitted that the Sessions Court did not appreciate the entire evidence in right perspective. Appellant's complicity in the case was highly doubtful as it was a case of circumstantial evidence, chain was not

complete. Conviction of appellant is based on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, appellant deserves to be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence drawing parity with co-accused Aditya Singh.

Per contra, Shri Nirankari, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Anshu Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the

application inter-alia contending that in fact and in effect appellant No.1 is the main accused person, while referring to the evidence of Kamlesh (PW-1), the eye-witness who had last seen the deceased with the present appellant and has stated that the deceased was thrown inside the white Scorpio car and then sped away towards an unknown destination. In the statement, the appellant No.1 has disclosed about the fact of white Scorpio which is of his ownership and the same has been recovered from his house. That apart, at his instance dead body of the deceased Ashok Singh was also recovered about 20 kms away in bushes from where he was seen last by PW-1. The hair found stuck in the fingers of the deceased was sent for DNA test; it was matched with the hair of the present appellant and as such was found to be of the same person. The report is Exhibit C-1. Besides, another DNA report is that of shoe which was worn by the deceased but was found in the Scorpio car of the present appellant vide Exhibit C-3. As such, the complicity of the appellant No.1 is writ large in the instant case and no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment for the purpose of suspension of sentence. Learned counsel also submits that the order dated 22.10.2021 does not at all deal with the incriminating material found against present appellant from the spot and put to test in specified laboratory (DNA test). The evidence found against the present appellant was not pointed towards the co-person Aditya Singh as such no parity can be claimed with the said person regard being had to the aforesaid facts and circumstances. That apart, learned counsel for the State submits that appellant No.1 has criminal antecedents and total 10 cases have been registered against him including the present case. Nine cases have been registered at Police Station Karahal, District Sheopur and one case has been registered at AJAK Sheopur.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains

from commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced touching the merits of the case, but is of the considered view that prima facie appellant's case is not similar to that of Aditya Singh to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence on the ground of parity. The evidence discussed in the judgment, as contended by the counsel for the respondent, prima facie do suggest that the contention that the appellant No.1's complicity is doubtful, cannot be accepted. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appellant No.1 does not deserves to be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.

    (ROHIT ARYA)                                         (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
       JUDGE                                                      JUDGE

Aman
  AMAN TIWARI
  2023.03.31 16:59:25
  +05'30'