Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2025
1 CRA-10860-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 10860 of 2023
(AAKASH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 04-08-2025
Shri Nilesh Dave - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the respondent /
State.
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.16167/2024, first application under Section 430 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of
the appellant Aakash S/o Mukesh Nayak .
The appellant stands convicted under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life
with fine of Rs.5,000/-; 10 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-; and 05 years RI
with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation.
The facts of the case in brief are that the alleged incident occurred on
26/05/2020 and FIR was lodged on 01/06/2020 against unknown
persons, Dehati Nalishi was registered and dead body of Ishhak Mohammad
was recovered by the Police, thereafter, offence was registered at Crime
No.182/2020 at Police Station Bhanpura, District Mandsaur for the offences
under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. Charge sheet was filed and thereafter,
Section 364 of IPC was added on the ground that deceased was abducted for
ransom and later on was murdered.
2 CRA-10860-2023
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this
impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this matter. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence
in its right perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in
the statement of the witnesses. Impugned judgment suffers from surmises
and conjectures and has been passed ignoring serious infirmities and
anomalies. No eye-witness account of the incident is available. During the
trial appellant has suffered jail incarceration of 01 year and 09 months and
thereafter, from the date of judgment i.e. 21/07/2023 he is languishing in jail,
meaning thereby, he has completed near about 03 years and 09 months in
custody. Learned counsel further submits that no cogent evidence is available
to establish the complicity of the appellant in murder of deceased Ishhak
Mohammad. For buttressing his point he has referred Ex.-P/32 and testimony
of Rahul Kumar (PW-9) and Alfrez, brother of the deceased (PW-7). He
further referred para 10, 19 and 46 of the judgment and submits that no case
is made out against the appellant. Motive for committing murder is also not
available. The appeal being of the year 2023 is not likely to be heard finally
in near future. There is a strong case in favour of the appellant. Hence, under
such circumstances prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant
of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent / State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
3 CRA-10860-2023
against the present appellant. He further submits that from the statement of
Alfrez (PW-7) it is established that it was the appellant, who along with other
co-accused took away the deceased and thereafter, he was found dead.
Cogent evidence in the form of circumstantial evidence is available to
establish complicity of the of the appellant and no fault can be found with in
convicting the appellant. Trial Court after considering the seizure memo, FSL
Report (Ex.-P/62 and P/63) and other material have convicted the
appellant. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the application for suspension of
sentence.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the aforesaid factual backdrop, looking to the evidence available in
the form of circumstantial evidence, we are of the considered view that no
case for grant of suspension of sentence is made out.
Accordingly, I.A.No.16167/2024 stands dismissed.
I.A.No.16165/2024, which is an application for urgent hearing also stands
disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
