Madhya Pradesh High Court
Layakram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 6048 of 2023
(HARIRAM Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
&
CRA No. 7858 of 2023
(LAYAKRAM Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-08-2024
Shri D.R. Sharma - Advocate for appellant - Layakram.
Shri Anand Purohit - Advocate for appellant - Hariram.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Per: Rajendra Kumar Vani, J.
I.A.No.19298 of 2023, 1st application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant - Hariram in Criminal
Appeal No.6048 of 2023 and I.A.No.7723 of 2024, 1st application
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant -
Layakram in Criminal Appeal No.7858 of 2024, for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail, are being decided by this common order.
2. Heard on aforesaid I.As.
3. Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 302
r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
with fine of Rs.5000/- each and under Section 201 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo three years R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/- each
with default stipulation vide impugned judgment dated 18.04.2023
passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Dabra, District
Gwalior, in Case No.32/2017.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 13.02.2017,
complainant Smt. Usha gave information at Bhitarwar police
station regarding missing of her husband Kamal to the effect that
yesterday, on 12.02.2017, at 07 pm, her husband Kamal Singh had
gone to irrigate the field with the help of electric motor and did not
return home. She searched him at places of nearby relatives and
villages, but he could not be found. On this information, a missing
person report bearing No.04/2017 (Exh. P/1) was registered at
Police Station Bhitarwar. On 15.02.2017, informant Layakram gave
an information at Police Station Bhitarwar that he lives in village
Baniyator and does farming. Kamal Singh is resident of Marakpur
who was living with Usha as her husband in village Baniyator for
about 10-12 years after the death of her husband, who suddenly
went missing on 12.02.2017. The deadbody of Kamal Singh is
lying in the well of Vishwanath in mastura haar. On which, the
Inspector Dharmendra Shivhare registered Marg Intimation bearing
No.4/2017 under Section 174 of CrPC. During the course of Marg
Enquiry, on 15/02/2017, in the presence of the witnesses, the dead
body of the Kamal Singh was taken out from the well and
panchnama (Exh. P-18) was prepared. Postmortem of the deadbody
of the deceased was conducted. Statements of the witnesses were
recorded during enquiry and thereafter, on 16.02.2017, FIR bearing
Crime No.46/2017 under Sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC was
registered at Police Station Bhitarwar against appellants.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in
the concerned Court, from where the case was committed to the
Sessions Court. The Sessions Court upon evaluation of evidence
placed on record has convicted and sentenced the present
appellants as referred above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants while taking exception to
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence
placed on record in correct perspective. The case of prosecution is
based on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed
to prove the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and the chain
of circumstance is not complete. It is submitted that no confession
is admissible while a person is in the custody of police. In this
regard, he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case
of Rajesh v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC online SC 1202. He further
submits that no motive has been proved and there was no matching
of blood group of the deceased with the blood stains found on the
seized clothes of the accused. On these grounds, learned counsel
prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellants.
7. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State
that the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and
it is found proved that the present appellants were seen with the
deceased Kamal Singh and thereafter was found dead. In this
respect, the statements of Usha (PW-1), Rajendra (PW-5) and
Nahar Singh (PW-7) are relevant. The dead-body of deceased
Kamal Singh was recovered at the instance of appellant Layakram
from the well of Viswnath Baghel. It is further submitted that on
the clothes seized from the possession of appellants, human blood
has been found in the FSL report. Moreover, the shoe was also
established to be used by Hariram and for that purpose, statement
of Dharmendra (PW-16) and memo Exhibit P-13 are relevant. No
explanation has been offered on behalf of appellants. The defence
evidence has been well discussed by the Trial Court. It is further
submitted that both the appellants have criminal antecedents. Under
such circumstances, present appellants do not deserve to be
extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties & perused the record.
9. It is true that confession of an accused person in the custody
of police is not admissible in the evidence but considering the
totality of facts and circumstances of the case having due regard to
the manner in which the offence has been committed and in view of
the criminal antecedents of the appellants, we are of the considered
opinion that no case is made out to extend the benefit of suspension
of sentence to present appellants at this stage.
10. Accordingly, I.A.No.19298 of 2023 and I.A.No.7723 of
2024 are dismissed.
11. Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of
deciding the instant I.As. and shall have no bearing on the merits of
the appeal.
A copy of this order be placed in Criminal Appeal No.7858
of 2023.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aman
