Jamsingh @ Jamla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 18118 MP

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                       CRA No. 4201 of 2022
                                            (JAMSINGH @ JAMLA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 31-10-2023
                                 Shri Mitesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                 Shri K. K. Tiwari, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.14362/2023, which is repeat second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant-Jamsingh@ Jamla.

2. First application of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.01.2023.

3. The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and 2 years of R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, respectively vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar (M.P.) in S.T. No.97/2020.

4. As per prosecution case, in the intervening night of 21- 22/07/2020

when the deceased Bahadur was sleeping in his house. Appellant gave blow by falia on his head, due to the injuries deceased died.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in the case. Entire prosecution case depends upon circumstantial evidences. Chain of circumstances are not completed against the appellant. He is convicted by the trial court on the basis that there was inimical relation between the appellant and the deceased therefore, appellant had motive to kill the deceased and as per Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 01-11-2023 13:07:14

D.N.A. report blood stain was found on the weapon which was used in the offence and clothes of the appellant which was recovered at the instance of the appellant were matched with the blood stain which was found on the soil recovered from the spot and clothes of the deceased. It is further submitted that blood stain clothes of the deceased and soil were seized on 22.07.2020 and weapon and clothes of the appellant were seized on 27.07.2020 and were sent for chemical examination on 26.08.2020. Meanwhile it has not been proved that the aforesaid articles were kept in safe custody but the trial court has not considered the aforesaid fact properly in the impugned judgement. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the case of Rahul Vs. State of Delhi,

Ministry of Home Affairs and Another reported in Criminal Law Journal 2023 1: AIROnline 2022 SC 841. It is further submitted that appellant is in custody since 27.07.2020 and final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future therefore, it is prayed that the remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail.

5. Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that chain of circumstances against the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt therefore, application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant is liable to be rejected.

6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7. In case of Rahul (Supra) the Apex Court has held in Paragraph-32 as under:-

"32. It is true that PW-23 Dr. B.K. Mohapatra, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) of CFSL, New Delhi had stepped into the witness box and his report regarding DNA profiling was exhibited as Ex. PW-23/A, however mere exhibiting a document, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 01-11-2023 13:07:14

would not prove its contents. The record shows that all the samples relating to the accused and relating to the deceased were seized by the Investigating Officer on 14.02.2012 and 16.02.2012; and they were sent to CFSL for examination on 27.02.2012. During this period, they remained in the Malkhana of the Police Station. Under the circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the samples collected also could not be ruled out. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court has examined the underlying basis of the findings in the DNA reports nor have they examined the fact whether the techniques were reliably applied by the expert. In absence of such evidence on record, all the reports with regard to the DNA profiling become highly vulnerable, more particularly when the collection and sealing of the samples sent for examination were also not free from suspicion."

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant bail to appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.14362/2023 is rejected.

                                  (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                        (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                                           JUDGE                                        JUDGE

                           ajit




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 01-11-2023
13:07:14