Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mansur Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 7555 of 2023
(MANSUR KHA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 15-02-2024
Shri Nilesh Dave - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri K. K. Tiwari - Government Advocate for the respondents State.
Heard o n I.A. No.15641/2023, which is first application filed under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of appellant No.2 Shivlal @ Shivnarayan S/o Mangilal.
2. Learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of
IPC and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-and under
Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to 3 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- with
default stipulations.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 20.12.2018, one dead body
was found in the forest of Mochikhedi. A report was lodged and it was found
that the deceased is Meharban Singh. The prosecution came with the case that
appellants Mansur and Geetabai were having love affair and appellant Shivlal @
Shivnarayan helped both the accused persons and on that basis the charge sheet
was submitted before the Court. Trial Court after recording the evidence found
the appellant Shivlal @ Shivnarayan guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 302 and 201 of the IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the
appellant has further submitted that the appellant is a permanent resident of
Shajapur and there is no chance of absconding. The prosecution failed to
prove the essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 302 and 201
of the IPC, insptie of that learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant No.2,
Shivlal @ Shivnarayan . There are major contradictions and omissions in the
statement of the prosecution witnesses, but the trial Court has not considered
this fact and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable
doubts. Learned counsel has further argued before this Court that the total
case is based upon the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances
has not been completed by which it can be inferred that the accused was
involved in the murder of the deceased. This appeal is of year 2023 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.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rambraksh Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh reported in MANU/SC/0559/2016, wherein the Apex
Court in paragraph No.10 held as under :-
"10. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded
against the accused merely on the ground that the
accused was last seen with the deceased. In other
words, a conviction cannot be based on the only
circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen
theory comes into play where the time gap, between the
point of time when the accused and the deceased were
seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is
so small that possibility of any person other than the
accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes
impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen
together itself would not be sufficient and the
prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances
to bring home the guilt of the accused."
5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has argued before
this Court that there is an ample evidence against the appellant No.2 Shivlal @
Shivnarayan. The trial Court after elaborate discussion has convicted the
appellant and, therefore, it is not a fit case for enlarging the appellant on bail and
suspending his jail sentence. Hence, the application to suspend the substantial
jail sentence be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
6 . The trial Court in its judgment has elaborately discussed the
circumstantial evidence brought against the appellant, particularly in paragraphs
No. 82, 91 and 95. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant Rambraksh (supra) is of no help to the appellant. Looking to the
evidence and the offence committed by the appellant, it is not a fit case where
t h e substantial jail sentence of the appellant- Shivlal @ Shivnarayan be
suspended.
Accordingly, I.A No.15641/2023 is hereby rejected.
In view of the aforesaid, IA No. 15639 of 2023, which is an application
for urgent hearing also stands disposed off.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
rashmi
