Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anshul Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 14600 of 2023
(ANSHUL JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 29-05-2024
Shri Amit Lahoti - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
PER JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
Heard on IA No.9269 of 2024, which is first application under Section
389 (1) of CrPC filed on behalf of appellant - Anshul Jain for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
2.Present appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and
Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and 2 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-
respectively with default stipulations vide judgment dated 18.10.2023 passed by
the Sessions Judge, Vidisha (MP) in Sessions Trial No.42 of 2021.
3.Prosecution case in brief is that Shailendra Raghuwanshi, brother of
deceased Arjun Raghuwanshi, found deceased Arjun Raghuwanshi lying near
R.T.O. office, therefore, for treatment he brought him to Distt. Hospital,
Vidisha, where doctor declared him dead. Merg Intimation No.93/2020 was
recorded. Naksha Panchayatnama of the dead-body was prepared and as per
the opinion of Panch, the deceased died due to sustaining injury on head by a
heavy object. Postmortem was conducted. After Merg enquiry, it was found
that some unknown person has committed murder of the deceased by sharp
Signature Notand heavy object. `FIR crime No.575/2020 under Sections 302, 201 of IPC was
Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
registered at police Station Kotwali Vidisha. Matter was investigated. During
Signing time: 01-06-2024
10:35:21 AM
investigation, it was found that a quarrel took place between the deceased and
appellant Anshul Jain. On the basis of information of informer, appellant and
co-accused Khubsingh Kushwah and Sonu Sharma have been arrested. Their
memorandum statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were recorded
in which they disclosed that on 18.10.2020 they stopped the deceased near
R.T.O. office. Thereafter appellant by means of knife and co-accused
Khubsingh by Katar inflicted various blows on stomach of deceased, due to
which deceased fell down, then co-accused Sonu Sharma inflicted Danda
blows on the head of deceased and appellant threw a stone on the head of the
deceased and crushed his head. After completing investigation, police filed
Challan. Thereafter, the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court. The
Sessions Court upon evaluation of evidence placed on record has convicted
and sentenced the present appellant as referred above.
4.Learned counsel for the appellant 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 appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. The
prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses having serious contradictions
and omissions in their statements, therefore, their statements are not believable.
The evidence led by the accused in defence has been overlooked. No criminal
conspiracy has been established from the evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution. During trial, appellant was on bail, but he did not misuse the liberty
so granted. The appeal is of the year 2023 and there is no likelihood of early
hearing of this appeal in near future. The appellant is ready to abide by all the
terms and conditions imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned
Counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant.
5.Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the application by
submitting that it was a planned murder of deceased Arjun Raghuwanshi due to
rivalary existed between the appellant and the deceased. As per medical
evidence and postmortem report, the deceased died due to the injuries sustained
on head and other parts of body and due to excessive bleeding. As per the
medical opinion, the injuries might be caused by incriminating articles seized
from the appellant and co-accused. It is true that there is no eye-witness of the
incident and case rests on circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances as
mentioned in para 36 of the impugned judgment have been established by the
reliable evidence on behalf of the prosecution. It is also submitted that a stone
as well as clothes having human blood have been seized from the possession of
the appellant/accused and no explanation for such human blood on these
articles has been given by the appellant. In this regard, FSL report is also in
support of prosecution case. It also revealed from the record that the shop of
the deceased was just adjacent to the shop of appellant Anshul Jain and there
was enmity between the two in relation to business of the shop and due to such
enmity, before the incident appellant has given threat to the deceased that he will
not let him celebrate Dussehra. On these grounds, prayed for dismissal of the
application.
6.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record
and considering the circumstantial evidence on record which prima facie
completes the link and keeping in view the manner and gravity of the offence
committed, in our considered opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of suspension
of sentence to the appellant.
7.Accordingly, I.A.No.9269 of 2024 is dismissed.
8.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.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
ms/-
