Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
1 CRA-3599-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 3599 of 2025
(MUKESH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 25-08-2025
Shri Harshit Tapadiya - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.10944/2025, 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 No.2 Leelabai W/o Mukesh .
Appellant stand convicted under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs.2,000/-
with usual default stipulation.
Brief facts of the case are that on 16/04/2021 at about 10:00 am
complainant / informant Haran made an oral complaint at Police Station
Kannod that his son deceased Sujit Haran after taking dinner went to the roof
and slept. At about 08:00 am Kothwar of the Village informed that the dead
body of his son is lying in the farm of Shivprasad and someone has killed his
son by crushing his head with stone. Incident was reported to the Police
Station and FIR was registered at Crime No.164/2021.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this
impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent lady and she has been
falsely implicated in this matter. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence
2 CRA-3599-2025
in its right perspective. Learned trial Court has overlooked the contradictions
and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and erroneously
come to the conclusion of convicting and sentencing the appellant. Impugned
judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures and has been passed
ignoring serious infirmities and anomalies. To buttress his submission,
learned counsel has referred the story narrated in para 2 of the impugned
judgment and also referred para 12 and 14 of statement of Ramchandra (PW-
1), statement of Rajpati Haran (PW-2) and SDOP Mahendra Singh Parmar
(PW-15). He has also referred para 39 and 128 of the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel further submits that no evidence is available against the
appellant Leelabai. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence
in right perspective. The appeal being of the year 2025 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 submit 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
against the present appellant. He further submits that judgment passed by the
Court is below is based on due appreciation of evidence. From Leelabai,
blood stained Saree has been recovered for which no explanation has been
offered. FSL and DNA reports also support the prosecution case. DNA
profiling of the cloths recovered from the deceased Sujeet has been found
3 CRA-3599-2025
match with the blood found on the seized belt, stone and cloths of Leelabai,
which is conclusive proof of complicity of the appellant with the crime. On
these submissions, learned counsel prays for dismissing the application for
suspension of sentence.
Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar and perused
the record.
We have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case along
with the motive of the incident that the deceased Sujeet was having illicit
relationship with the wife of co-appellant Mukesh. There is a positive FSL
and DNA reports, which are clinching evidence to prove the prosecution
case. The appellant has offered no explanation for the blood found on
her Saree. Learned trial Court has given due consideration to the evidence
available on record.
In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that no case
for grant of suspension is made out. Accordingly, I.A.No.10944/2025 stands
dismissed.
Registry is directed to list the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
